Ostensible authority
Language: English Series: Construction Industry Law Letter ; December 2005 - January 2006, 2285-2288(4)Publication details: 2005Subject(s): Summary: Considers "GPN Ltd (in receivership) v O2 (UK) Ltd" ([2004] EWHC 2494 (TCC), 22 October 2004). O wished to negotiate with G in connection with the use of G3 technology at approximately 1900 of O's sites. A number of meetings took place between G and O's quantity surveyors, M, in connection with the terms of the proposed contract; on some occasions M agreed terms without referring back to O, although on others M did refer back for instructions. In February 2002, the only outstanding matter related to the exact number of sites in the project. G contended that this was agreed orally with M, thus completing the contract. Upon dispute as to G's entitlement to payment, the matter was referred to an adjudicator who made an award in G's favour, which G sought to enforce. O contended that M had had no authority to conclude a contract on its behalf. G argued that by its conduct, O had represented that M both had authority to act on O's behalf and specifically to bind O in relation to the contract. "Held' G had been unable to demonstrate the clear evidence necessary to rebut the presumption that M, as professional quantity surveyors, did not have ostensible authority to conclude a contract on behalf of O.| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Date due | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Journal article | London Journal article | L131989 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 131989-1001 |
Considers "GPN Ltd (in receivership) v O2 (UK) Ltd" ([2004] EWHC 2494 (TCC), 22 October 2004). O wished to negotiate with G in connection with the use of G3 technology at approximately 1900 of O's sites. A number of meetings took place between G and O's quantity surveyors, M, in connection with the terms of the proposed contract; on some occasions M agreed terms without referring back to O, although on others M did refer back for instructions. In February 2002, the only outstanding matter related to the exact number of sites in the project. G contended that this was agreed orally with M, thus completing the contract. Upon dispute as to G's entitlement to payment, the matter was referred to an adjudicator who made an award in G's favour, which G sought to enforce. O contended that M had had no authority to conclude a contract on its behalf. G argued that by its conduct, O had represented that M both had authority to act on O's behalf and specifically to bind O in relation to the contract. "Held' G had been unable to demonstrate the clear evidence necessary to rebut the presumption that M, as professional quantity surveyors, did not have ostensible authority to conclude a contract on behalf of O.