Q: Describe about the citation of Mundy v. New York, 27 N.Y.S. 469 (1894) ?

Ans: 

In an American case Mundy v. New York, 27 N.Y.S. 469 (1894), it was held that while a flood was outside the control of the party, the flood delay was inexcusable because similar flooding had occurred previously and was thus foreseeable. These principles also form the basis of the UNIDROIT principles and are thus, universally accepted.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Q: Difference between extra work and additional work ?

Ans: Additional work usually comes within the terms of contract and therefore it does not amount to additional payment. It is significant to take into account whether the work done is outside the scope of the construction contract and therefore whether it falls within the ambit of extra work or not. The object and purpose of the construction contract, terms and conditions of the contract and intention of the parties is important to determine whether extra work done by the contractor amounts to an additional payment to the contractor or not. x
Read more

Q: Elaborate the citation of Obrascon Huarte Lain SA v Her Majesty’s Attorney General for Gibraltar, [2014] EWHC 1028 (TCC) ?

Ans:  Obrascon Huarte Lain SA v Her Majesty’s Attorney General for Gibraltar, [2014] EWHC 1028 (TCC). In Obrascon, it was held that an experienced contractor must make its own assessment of all available data and come to its own conclusions, rather than to ‘slavishly’ accept the information from the employer. Failure to carry out an independent assessment of grounds conditions would disentitle a contractor from claiming damages, and would entitle the employer to terminate the contract for delay on the part of the contractor attributable to ground conditions.
Read more