In this case the provisions in CPR 70.2A may be of assistance. This provides that: '… if a mandatory order, an injunction or a judgment or order for the specific performance of a contract is not complied

Where a lease contains a tenant’s option to purchase the reversion, normally the contract for that sale and purchase will be set out in the lease itself. See Precedent:

Trustees contract in their personal capacity and so want to avoid personal liability. When trustees enter into contracts with third parties, they are personally liable on those contracts unless there is a term in the contract which limits their liability to the trust assets (see Muir v City of Glasgow Bank). Trustees will invariably seek to exclude personal liability altogether or to limit their liability to the value of the trust assets under their control from time to time (which may become nil if the land being sold is the only trust asset). Being described in the contract as trustees will not be enough. In Lumsden v Buchanan (1865) 13 LT 174, 4 Macq 950 (not reported by LexisNexis®’),

What are the requirements of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996? Section 110(1) of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 (HGCRA 1996), requires that every construction contract shall provide: • an ‘adequate mechanism’ for determining what payments become due under the contract, and when (ie the due date) (HGCRA 1996, s 110(1)(a)), and • a final date for payment in respect of any sum that becomes due (HGCRA 1996, s 110(1)(b)). HGCRA 1996, s 110(1) states that the parties are free to agree how long the period is between the due date and the final date Where a construction contract fails to meet either of these requirements, then the provisions of the Scheme for Construction Contracts

We have assumed that the contract between A and B is a business-to-business contract. Initial claim between A and B B’s claim against A in respect of the unsold stock will be a claim in damages and potentially also for lost profit. The extent to which these are recoverable will depend on the terms of the contract itself but bear in mind considerations such as section 4(1) of the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982 and section 14 of the Sale of Goods Act 1979. See Practice Note: Implied terms in contracts for goods and services. B may also wish to consider whether it has grounds for returning the unsold stock, which may depend on whether B has already ‘accepted’ the goods, see Practice Note: Goods—delivery and acceptance and the following Q&A: If in a business to business

Where an employee is dismissed by reason of redundancy, the Employment Rights Act 1996 (ERA 1996) provides a mechanism for the employer to offer the employee, and for the employee to accept, new or renewed employment as an alternative to a redundancy payment. In certain circumstances, if this happens and the employee is re-engaged within four weeks, the original dismissal is deemed a ‘fiction’; the employee is considered not to be dismissed and is not entitled to a statutory redundancy payment. For more information, see Practice Notes: Renewal of contract, re-engagement and trial periods, Suitable alternative employment and Unreasonable refusal of alternative employment. Effect of renewal or re-engagement A distinction is made between the situation where: • the original contract is renewed • the employee is re-engaged under a new contract

At signing Execution of finance documents Name of document Form of agreement To be executed by or on behalf of Signatories Executed? Facility agreement Simple contract [insert name of borrower] (the Borrower) [insert details of Borrower’s authorised signatories] [insert

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z Key date This phrase is sometimes used in a construction contract to

By virtue of the Crown Proceedings Act 1947 (CPA 1947), the Crown may be sued in contract or tort in the normal manner as a private person, by way of legal proceedings brought against

Construction analysis: The Technology and Construction Court (TCC) refused to summarily enforce an adjudicator’s decision in a case involving an existential challenge to the contract pursuant to which the adjudicator had been appointed and allegations of fraud. Applying Pegram Shopfitters v Tally Weijl, the court noted that as this was an existential challenge to contract formation, not a mere misdescription of terms, the adjudicator’s decision on jurisdiction would not be temporarily binding, and enforcement would fail if the defendant, WLP Trading and Marketing Ltd (WLP), had a respectable case that the foundational contract did not exist; the TCC held that there was a real prospect that the adjudicator lacked jurisdiction on this basis. The court rejected the argument that jurisdiction was salvaged because the Scheme for Construction Contracts would have applied under any alternative contractual analysis: appointment under non-existent contractual machinery is fatal. Given that conclusion, the court did not need to determine the fraud allegations or issues of payment into court. The decision underscores the centrality of contract formation to adjudicator jurisdiction and enforcement.

In the County Court at [insert] Claim No. [insert number] Between A        Claimant and B        Defendant _______________________ Particulars of claim _______________________ 1 At all material times the Claimant was a British national habitually resident and domiciled within the jurisdiction of England and Wales. 2 On 3 February 2024 the Claimant booked accommodation at the Jupiter hotel in Punta Cana, in the Dominican Republic, for the fortnight between 5 and 20 August 2024. The said contract was formed over the internet via the Defendant’s website. 3 It was an express term of the said contract that: ‘We are responsible for the provision of the accommodation you book with us. If it is not provided with reasonable skill and care, we will be liable to you for any injury you may sustain as a result.’ [clause 10.] 4 The Claimant duly paid the contract

Liquidated damages clauses A liquidated damages clause in a contract provides that a pre-determined sum shall be paid by one party to the other for a specific breach or breaches of the contract. If the amount specified is grossly disproportionate to the actual loss suffered, the clause will be unenforceable as a penalty. The advantages of liquidated damages clauses are that they provide some certainty to the parties, allow the parties to agree an amount considered reasonable for any breach and avoid litigation. The disadvantage with such clauses is that it is often unclear whether they are enforceable or a penalty. See generally Practice Note: Contract interpretation—distinguishing between liquidated damages and penalty clauses and Precedent: Liquidated damages clause. The principles applicable The following general principles apply to liquidated damages clauses: • the traditional