Contract payment mechanisms: Peter Mair vs Mohammed Arshad

By Nicholas Gould and Nicholas Gould Nicholas Gould 2008-05-23T00:00:00

The pursuers were seeking the sum of £8,730 from the defender, together with interest and expenses. The parties agreed that there was a contract within the meaning of the Construction Act and that the first invoice for £1,000 had been paid. The pursuer argued that two further invoices had not ...

Already registered? Login here

To continue enjoying Building.co.uk, sign up for free guest access

Existing subscriber? LOGIN

Stay at the forefront of thought leadership with news and analysis from award-winning journalists. Enjoy company features, CEO interviews, architectural reviews, technical project know-how and the latest innovations.

Limited access to building.co.uk
Breaking industry news as it happens
Breaking, daily and weekly e-newsletters

Get your free guest access SIGN UP TODAY

Subscribe now for unlimited access

Subscribe to Building today and you will benefit from:

Unlimited access to all stories including expert analysis and comment from industry leaders
Our league tables, cost models and economics data
Our online archive of over 10,000 articles
Building magazine digital editions
Building magazine print editions
Printed/digital supplements

Subscribe now for unlimited access.

View our subscription options and join our community