*Please note that the links to the content in this Part will direct you to Westlaw AU. If you are still using Legal Online, the links can be found in the LOLA PDF at the bottom of this post.
The latest issue of the Building and Construction Law Journal (Volume 29 Part 2) contains the following material:
- Parties’ intention versus prevention too far
BOOK REVIEW – Thomas Gibbons
- The Leaky Buildings Crisis: Understanding the Issues by Steve Alexander
Termination for convenience – not as easy as it sounds – Jennifer McVeigh and Kimie Tsukakoshi
Termination for convenience clauses are often inserted into construction contracts to provide parties with the flexibility to cancel projects before completion without cause. In these uncertain economic times, such clauses may come under greater scrutiny as increasing numbers of entities consider early termination as part of cost-cutting measures. Despite the apparent simplicity of the termination for convenience clause, its use may be complicated by a requirement to exercise the power to terminate in good faith. The case law demonstrates that it is not yet certain whether or not an obligation of good faith applies to a termination for convenience clause, and it is therefore prudent for a party wishing to exercise those rights to turn its mind to the potential constraints imposed by the possible implication of an obligation to act in good faith.
The use of formulae to calculate liquidated damages and stipulated sums – Richard Manly SC
This article supports the use of formulae to calculate liquidated damages or stipulated sums in contracts that are complex or in situations where the loss and damages that contracting parties may suffer are difficult to pre-estimate. Formulae also have a beneficial role to play in the calculation of loss entitlements in a range of commercial contracts that are also reviewed in this article.
- Austman Pty Ltd v Mount Gibson Mining Ltd