Construction Law in UK Law

Leading Cases
  • Whitworth Street Estates (Manchester) Ltd v James Miller and Partners Ltd
    • House of Lords
    • 03 Mar 1970

    I must say that I had thought that it is now well settled that it is not legitimate to use as an aid in the construction of the contract anything which the parties said or did after it was made. Otherwise one might have the result that a contract meant one thing the day it was signed, but by reason of subsequent events meant something different a month or a year later.

  • Linden Gardens Trust Ltd v Lenesta Sludge Disposals Ltd and Others ; St Martins Property Corporation Ltd and Another v Sir Robert McAlpine Ltd (formerly Sir Robert McAlpine and Sons Ltd)
    • House of Lords
    • 22 Jul 1993

    In such a case, it seems to me proper, as in the case of the carriage of goods by land, to treat the parties as having entered into the contract on the footing that Corporation would be entitled to enforce contractual rights for the benefit of those who suffered from defective performance but who, under the terms of the contract, could not acquire any right to hold McAlpine liable for breach.

  • Carillion Construction Ltd v Devonport Royal Dockyard Ltd
    • Court of Appeal
    • 16 Nov 2005

    It is only too easy in a complex case for a party who is dissatisfied with the decision of an adjudicator to comb through the adjudicator's reasons and identify points upon which to present a challenge under the labels "excess of jurisdiction" or "breach of natural justice". The time constraints within which he is expected to operate are proof of that. The need to have the "right" answer has been subordinated to the need to have an answer quickly.

  • Davis Contractors Ltd v Fareham Urban District Council
    • House of Lords
    • 19 Abr 1956

    So perhaps it would be simpler to say at the outset that frustration occurs whenever the law recognises that without default of either party a contractual obligation has become incapable of being performed because the circumstances in which performance is called for would render it a thing radically different from that which was undertaken by the contract.

  • Gilbert Ash (Northern) Ltd v Modern Engineering (Bristol) Ltd
    • House of Lords
    • 25 Jul 1973

    But in construing such a contract one starts with the presumption that neither party intends to abandon any remedies for its breach arising by operation of law, and clear express words must be used in order to rebut this presumption.

  • Trentham (G Percy) Ltd v Archital Luxfer Ltd
    • Court of Appeal
    • 20 Jul 1992

    The fact that the transaction was performed on both sides will often make it unrealistic to argue that there was no intention to enter into legal relations. It will often make it difficult to submit that the contract is void for vagueness or uncertainty. Specifically, the fact that the transaction is executed makes it easier to imply a term resolving any uncertainty, or, alternatively, it may make it possible to treat a matter not finalised in negotiations as inessential.

  • Stocznia Gdanska SA v Latvian Shipping Company and Others
    • House of Lords
    • 26 Feb 1998

    Considerations such as these lend added weight in this context to the familiar principle of construction that clear words are needed to rebut the presumption that a contracting party does not intend to abandon any remedies for breach of the contract arising by operation of law: see, e.g., Modern Engineering (Bristol) Ltd. v. Gilbert-Ash (Northern) Ltd. [1974] A.C. 689, 717, per Lord Diplock.

See all results
Legislation
See all results
Books & Journal Articles
See all results