Banque Paribas v Venaglass Limited
Language: English Series: Construction Industry Law Letter ; (1994) CILL 918-919(2)Publication details: 1994Subject(s): Summary: CA 31 January 1994. A freehold owner of a site (V) entered into a a development agreement with a developer. The developer ran into financial difficulties and V served notice of termination. Under Schedule 4 of the agreement, V became obligated to pay the developer the value of work done. At first instance on the issue of the meaning of Schedule 4 the court rejected the cost based approach contended by B. On appeal CA held in favour of B; the value of the works was to be ascertained by reference to fair and reasonable remuneration for demolition and construction work carried out.| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Date due | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law report | London Journal article | ABS50816 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 57679-1001 |
Browsing London shelves, Shelving location: Journal article Close shelf browser (Hides shelf browser)
CA 31 January 1994. A freehold owner of a site (V) entered into a a development agreement with a developer. The developer ran into financial difficulties and V served notice of termination. Under Schedule 4 of the agreement, V became obligated to pay the developer the value of work done. At first instance on the issue of the meaning of Schedule 4 the court rejected the cost based approach contended by B. On appeal CA held in favour of B; the value of the works was to be ascertained by reference to fair and reasonable remuneration for demolition and construction work carried out.