A claim for misrepresentation arises where one party to a contract (the representor) made an untrue statement that induced the other (the representee) to enter into the contract. The key elements of an actionable misrepresentation are: • the statement relied on by the representee was a statement made to him by or on behalf of the representor • the statement was intended by the representor to induce the representee to enter into the contract • the statement actually induced the representee to enter into the contract • the statement had the character of a representation • the representation was false • where damages are claimed, the misrepresentation caused the representee to suffer loss For more details, see Practice Note: Misrepresentation—what it is and similar claims. Defences that the representor will typically raise are: • the statement was not intended to be relied on • the representee would have entered the contract in any event • the

A worker is entitled to a redundancy payment when: • he is an employee • he has been continuously employed for not less than two years • he has been dismissed, and • the dismissal was by reason of redundancy For the purposes of entitlement to a redundancy payment, dismissal means any situation where: • the employer terminates the contract, with or without notice • a limited term contract comes to an end and is not renewed • an employee is entitled to terminate the contract with or without notice by reason of the employer’s conduct, and does so (except by reason of a lock out) • notice is given by the employer and the employee subsequently gives notice in writing to terminate the contract before the end of the notice period • an act on the part of the employer operates to terminate the contract, and • an event affecting an employer

Construction analysis: Jones v Onyut highlights the importance of a written contract with an agreed scope and contract price and considers the admissibility of expert reports based on video evidence. Robert Blundell, partner in the construction group at Maxwell Winward LLP, says there are a number of valuable lessons to be learned.

Construction analysis: What does MT Højgaard v EON tell us about the importance of clear contract conditions in relation to fitness for purpose obligations where a contract also contains lesser contractual requirements? Hamish Lal, partner and head of contentious and non-contentious construction at Jones Day, explores this case and the importance of clear drafting of warranties and guarantees.

The answer to this question will depend on the interpretation of the contract between the parties, taking into account (in the usual way) all the terms, and the background circumstances known to the parties at the time. See, generally, Practice Note: Contract interpretation—the guiding principles. Subject to that caveat, if for example the contract incorporates the Standard Commercial Property Conditions (Third Edition-2018 revision), the position will be governed

If there is no express provision regarding insurance in an agreement for lease then, under the open contract rules: • neither party is obliged to insure the property, and • risk passes to the tenant on exchange of the agreement for lease If the agreement for lease incorporates the Standard Commercial Property Conditions (Second or Third Editions) or the Standard Conditions of Sale (5th Edition), the default position under those Conditions (unless modified by the terms of the agreement) is the same: the seller/landlord is not required to insure the property and so risk passes to the buyer/tenant on exchange. Consequences of either of those scenarios In the case of an unconditional agreement for lease, this means that the tenant will be obliged to take the lease even if the property is destroyed between exchange and completion. This outcome will certainly not suit the tenant. Equally, however, if the tenant refuses to complete the lease and an order for specific performance is refused, this outcome may well not suit the landlord either, as the

This Practice Note summarises the execution formalities for witnesses, including who can act as a witness to the signature of another person on a document relating to a commercial transaction such as a deed or simple contract, witnessing electronic signatures and the position on video witnessing. For information relating to the witnessing of wills, see Practice Note: Validity of Wills—signature. We have produced a collection that is a comprehensive, interactive resource to help users identify and work through the concepts and common issues when executing documents, including information relating to the witnessing of signatures. Each section or phase includes practical guidance, precedent clauses and Q&As relevant to that section. For more information, see: Execution collection. Witnessing What is the difference between witnessing and attestation? Witnessing involves observing the execution of a document. Attestation involves the additional step of recording, on the document itself, that the witness has observed the execution. Typically, this is achieved by the witness signing an attestation clause which confirms that the document was duly executed in the presence of a witness. When is a witness required? When

You may find Lexis®PSL Property Practice Note: Buying land from trustees (including co-owners) helpful in relation to the sale of property by co-owners. For further information on the level of capacity required to sell a property, see Practice Note: Capacity to make gifts, settle property and contract, in particular the section entitled Capacity to make gifts, settle property and contract—Capacity to contract. See also the case of Sutton v Sutton which considered the capacity required to transfer land. If

In general, a valid contract may be made by any person recognised by law as having legal personality, that is natural persons, corporations and the Crown. However, the following classes of persons are in law incompetent to contract, or may have their capacity to contract limited in certain ways: (1) bankrupts; (2) minors; (3) those suffering from a lack of mental capacity; (4) those under the influence of drink or drugs; (5) partnerships;

Dispute Resolution analysis: the application of the so-called ‘extended Fiona trust principle’ was considered in relation to whether a jurisdiction clause in one contract could be applied for the purposes of a dispute in relation to another contract for which no provision for court jurisdiction had been made. Written by Jonathan Kelly, senior associate) and Zaid Fathoala, associate, Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer LLP.

This week's edition of Construction weekly highlights includes publication by Joint Contracts Tribunal (JCT) of the Minor Works (MW) and Minor Works with contractor’s design (MWD) 2024 contracts and some sub-contract forms, a case in which the court considered whether a revised and re-issued adjudicator’s decision was unenforceable in relation to a clerical error or typographical error (McLaughlin & Harvey v LJJ), a decision of the Supreme Court on whether a party should have accepted non-contractual performance from its counterparty in order to overcome the effects of a force majeure event (RTI v Mur Shipping), a new National Procurement Policy Statement (NPPS) published by the Cabinet Office, and the announcement of new membership to the C02nstruct Zero campaign by the Construction Leadership Council (CLC).

The Companies Act 2006 (CA 2006) requires a company to: • retain copies of directors’ service contracts • make copies of directors’ service contracts available for inspection, and • provide copies of directors’ service contracts to any member of the company, upon request The term ‘director’, for the purpose of these provisions, includes any person occupying the position of director, by whatever name called (ie, whatever the official title used), and a shadow director. In relation to other obligations that a company may have in relation to directors’ service contracts, see Practice Note: Directors’ long term service contracts. Companies with a listing of equity shares in the equity shares (commercial companies) category on the London Stock Exchange are subject to additional regulation in relation to directors’ service contracts; for further details see Practice Note: Directors’ service contracts—listed companies. The Chartered Governance Institute has produced guidance on directors' service contracts which covers, among other things, the regulatory framework governing service agreements between companies and their directors and key provisions to be set out