*Please note that the links to the content in this Part will direct you to Westlaw AU.<\/p>\n
The latest issue of the Building and Construction Law Journal <\/em>(Volume 31 Part 2) contains the following material:<\/p>\n EDITORIAL<\/a><\/p>\n BOOK REVIEW<\/a><\/p>\n Termination for convenience: Good faith and other possible restrictions <\/em><\/strong><\/a>\u00e2\u20ac\u201c <\/em>Albert Monichino QC<\/p>\n Termination for convenience clauses allow a contracting party to terminate at will and without cause. They are quite common in construction contracts. Clauses that empower the principal (or its representative) to remove part of the work from the contractor\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s scope of works are also quite common. Is the principal at large in exercising such rights, alternatively is the exercise of such rights tempered by either an implied obligation to act in good faith, the equitable doctrine of penalties; or the equitable doctrine of relief against forfeiture? Can contract drafting assist and, if so, how? As some segments of the building and mining industries in Australia face straightened economic times, it is likely that the courts will be called on to resolve such issues.<\/p>\n To purchase this article, complete the Individual Article Sale<\/a> order form and email it to tlranz.journal.orders@thomsonreuters.com<\/a>.<\/p>\n REPORTS<\/p>\n For the pdf version of the table of contents, click here:\u00c2\u00a0BCL Vol 31 No 2 Contents<\/a><\/p>\n\n
\n
Article<\/h3>\n
\n