or to join or start a new Discussion

Articles/all comments
These 1078429 comments are related to an article called:

Good News

Page 5787 of 43138

posted on 10/12/12

posted on 10/12/12

roll credits

posted on 10/12/12

posted on 10/12/12

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

posted on 10/12/12

same time tomorrow?

posted on 10/12/12

that does look a bit like me actually.

posted on 10/12/12

Dear Mr xxxx,

I was interested to read your Building Magazine article dated xxxxx 2012 concerning payment notices under the new legislation.

Although I was not aware at the time of the Scottish case which you refer to, I wrote an article on the same matter for Building Magazine which was published on xxxxx 200x, and a more detailed article for xxxxxx Consulting in 2010.

Although it did not seem to have generally been picked up by the industry before the new legislation was enacted, it has always seemed to me, that an interpretation similar to that which is given to paragraph 12 of the Scheme for Construction Contracts in your case of xxxx v xxxxx, is likely to be given to the sections of the new legislation which concern payment notices, because :

1) There is now a statutory sanction for failing to state “the basis of the calculation”

2) Whereas the requirement to state “the basis of the calculation” was, under the original legislation, in regards to the amount which the payer intends to pay, under the new legislation the requirement to “state the basis”, is with regard to the calculation of the amount considered due. In my opinion that particular requirement under the original legislation could be complied with simply by saying “it is all we can afford to pay”, whereas now the payee must be entitled to some kind of a demonstration from the payer as to how it has ascertained the amount due.

Although an interpretation of the new clause on the same basis as xxxx v xxxxx may give rise to situations where neither party has submitted a compliant payment notice, it is my view that the payee may be entitled to the actual “amount due” (as ascertained by reference to the adequate mechanism) regardless of whether there is a “notified amount” or not.

It will be interesting to see how these new rules are applied.

Kind regards,


Brayns

posted on 10/12/12

Hello

posted on 10/12/12

fak

posted on 10/12/12

where the fak did you come from ?

posted on 10/12/12

I was stuck in a giant cake in Wenger's office.

posted on 10/12/12

I was lonely and scared, scared beyond fear.

posted on 10/12/12

jaysis

it sounds nasty santa

posted on 10/12/12

is the timing of your re-emergence - moments after i posted a fake letter concerning some made up legislation - a coincidence, or should more be read into it ?

posted on 10/12/12

Last time I agree to be the filling in a victoria sandwich, not what I thought I was signing up for at all.

posted on 10/12/12

well look what the cat dragged in, just as i was getting ready to go home too.

how's it going sgv?

posted on 10/12/12

id love to be the filling in a victoria sandwich.

posted on 10/12/12

Always on the look out for fake legislation, it's my mission, nay calling.

posted on 10/12/12

Good Spurgle

posted on 10/12/12

have you been over on the other side with spurcat and co?

posted on 10/12/12

Haven't spoken to Spurcat for yonks, hope he's ok.

posted on 10/12/12

i cant send that letter now

posted on 10/12/12

Have to go make some food, but I'll check in later to prevent any draft legislation on building projects whahahahahahaahahahahahaahahah

posted on 10/12/12

galv will absoloutely cream himself that satan's back

another week of showing off

comment by ● (U4443)

posted on 10/12/12

Gather ye rosebuds while ye may.

Page 5787 of 43138

Sign in if you want to comment