Linden Gardens Trust Ltd v Lenesta Sludge Disposals Ltd [1993] UKHL 4, [1994] 1 AC 85 is the short title for a judicial decision of conjoined appeals in the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords in relation to the relevance of continued privity of contract following assignment of property under English contract law.
Attributes | Values |
---|
rdf:type
| |
rdfs:label
| - Linden Gardens Trust Ltd v Lenesta Sludge Disposals Ltd (en)
|
rdfs:comment
| - Linden Gardens Trust Ltd v Lenesta Sludge Disposals Ltd [1993] UKHL 4, [1994] 1 AC 85 is the short title for a judicial decision of conjoined appeals in the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords in relation to the relevance of continued privity of contract following assignment of property under English contract law. (en)
|
name
| - (en)
- and (en)
- Linden Gardens Ltd v Lenesta Sludge Ltd (en)
- St Martin's Property Corporation Ltd v Sir Robert McAlpine Ltd (en)
|
dcterms:subject
| |
Wikipage page ID
| |
Wikipage revision ID
| |
Link from a Wikipage to another Wikipage
| |
sameAs
| |
dbp:wikiPageUsesTemplate
| |
citations
| - [1993] 3 All ER 417 (en)
- [1993] 3 WLR 408 (en)
- [1994] 1 AC 85 (en)
- [1994] UKHL 4 (en)
|
court
| |
judges
| |
keywords
| - Duty of care, privity, assignment (en)
|
has abstract
| - Linden Gardens Trust Ltd v Lenesta Sludge Disposals Ltd [1993] UKHL 4, [1994] 1 AC 85 is the short title for a judicial decision of conjoined appeals in the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords in relation to the relevance of continued privity of contract following assignment of property under English contract law. The cases concerned substantial defective works and whether the assignee who was directly impacted could recover money for this directly (the Linden appeal) and/or the assignor (the original owner) could recover the money by suing the works contractor (the St Martin's appeal). The standard Joint Contracts Tribunal (JCT) contract clause used could, the Court held, legitimately on grounds of public policy somewhat prohibit assignment (that is be subject to its qualified consent to assign the underlying asset, the property). The two potential lines of liability were decided in the negative and in the affirmative respectively. In summary, the first case was not brought by the original owner who commissioned the works (the new owner of the building should have considered the old asbestos contractor in his purchase transaction), the second case was brought by the original owner, still in business, at the behest of the new owner and in a case where both the original parties knew the development would very likely be assigned and relied on by third parties. (en)
|
gold:hypernym
| |
prov:wasDerivedFrom
| |
page length (characters) of wiki page
| |
foaf:isPrimaryTopicOf
| |
is Link from a Wikipage to another Wikipage
of | |
is Wikipage redirect
of | |
is foaf:primaryTopic
of | |