Early perceptions of allowing adjudication of oral contracts
| dc.contributor.author | Charlson, Jennifer | |
| dc.contributor.author | Baldwin, Robert | |
| dc.contributor.author | Harrison, Jamie | |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2015-08-11T14:26:16Z | en |
| dc.date.available | 2015-08-11T14:26:16Z | en |
| dc.date.issued | 2014-10-07 | |
| dc.identifier.citation | Early perceptions of allowing adjudication of oral contracts 2014, 6 (3):233 International Journal of Law in the Built Environment | |
| dc.identifier.issn | 1756-1450 | |
| dc.identifier.doi | 10.1108/IJLBE-02-2013-0004 | |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/2436/565875 | |
| dc.description.abstract | The purpose of this paper is to consider the implications of the admission of oral contracts to statutory adjudication proceedings. A major criticism of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 (“HGCRA 1996”) was that Section 107 required contracts to be “in writing” for the parties to be able to use statutory adjudication. In response, the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 repealed Section 107 of the HGCRA 1996. This paper considers the implications of the admission of oral contracts to statutory adjudication proceedings, whereby adjudicators’ may now have to determine the exact nature of oral agreements. The critical literature review has highlighted that there is a perceived risk that, by allowing oral contracts to be decided through adjudication, there could be an increased risk of injustice (as the adjudicator may have to decide oral testimony about contract formation). Adjudicators may now have to determine the exact nature of oral agreements. The critical literature review has highlighted that there is a perceived risk that by allowing oral contracts to be decided through adjudication there could be an increased risk of injustice (as the adjudicator may have to decide oral testimony about contract formation). | |
| dc.language.iso | en | |
| dc.publisher | Emerald | |
| dc.relation.url | http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/abs/10.1108/IJLBE-02-2013-0004 | |
| dc.subject | Adjudication | |
| dc.subject | Dispute resolution | |
| dc.subject | Local democracy | |
| dc.subject | Oral contracts | |
| dc.subject | Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 | |
| dc.subject | Housing grants | |
| dc.subject | Construction and regeneration act 1996 | |
| dc.title | Early perceptions of allowing adjudication of oral contracts | |
| dc.type | Journal article | |
| dc.identifier.journal | International Journal of Law in the Built Environment | |
| html.description.abstract | The purpose of this paper is to consider the implications of the admission of oral contracts to statutory adjudication proceedings. A major criticism of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 (“HGCRA 1996”) was that Section 107 required contracts to be “in writing” for the parties to be able to use statutory adjudication. In response, the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 repealed Section 107 of the HGCRA 1996. This paper considers the implications of the admission of oral contracts to statutory adjudication proceedings, whereby adjudicators’ may now have to determine the exact nature of oral agreements. The critical literature review has highlighted that there is a perceived risk that, by allowing oral contracts to be decided through adjudication, there could be an increased risk of injustice (as the adjudicator may have to decide oral testimony about contract formation). Adjudicators may now have to determine the exact nature of oral agreements. The critical literature review has highlighted that there is a perceived risk that by allowing oral contracts to be decided through adjudication there could be an increased risk of injustice (as the adjudicator may have to decide oral testimony about contract formation). |