Abstract

https://ssrn.com/abstract=1718205
 


 



Construction Goes Off the Rails


Wayne Courtney


The University of Sydney Law School

Ben Curtin


The University of Sydney

December 1, 2010

Journal of Contract Law, Vol. 22, No. 3, pp. 287-299, 2006
Sydney Law School Research Paper No. 10/135

Abstract:     
Parties to a contract may agree to restrict or qualify the right of one party to terminate for another’s breach or repudiation. A typical clause may require notice to the defaulting party, and an opportunity to rectify the default or show cause why the right to terminate ought not be exercised. Other clauses may require the right to terminate to be exercised within a limited period of time.

In Wallace-Smith v Thiess Infraco (Swanston) Pty Ltd (2005) 218 ALR 1; [2005] FCAFC 49, the Full Federal Court considered the effect of a clause restricting the right to terminate. This article examines critically that decision and the principles governing the operation of such clauses. It suggests that there are several flaws in the reasoning of the Full Court.

Number of Pages in PDF File: 12

Keywords: Contract, Breach of contract, Termination

JEL Classification: K10, K12, K30


Open PDF in Browser Download This Paper

Date posted: December 2, 2010  

Suggested Citation

Courtney, Wayne and Curtin, Ben, Construction Goes Off the Rails (December 1, 2010). Journal of Contract Law, Vol. 22, No. 3, pp. 287-299, 2006; Sydney Law School Research Paper No. 10/135. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1718205

Contact Information

Wayne Courtney (Contact Author)
The University of Sydney Law School ( email )
New Law Building, F10
The University of Sydney
Sydney, NSW 2006
Australia

Ben Curtin
The University of Sydney ( email )
University of Sydney
Sydney, NC NSW 2006
Australia
Feedback to SSRN


Paper statistics
Abstract Views: 503
Downloads: 62
Download Rank: 282,416