_______________________________________ [NAME OF PROJECT] PROCEDURAL UNFAIRNESS OBJECTION CONCERNING [THE DISPUTE BOARD OR [DB member name] (DISPUTE BOARD MEMBER)] [Date] _______________________________________ Objecting Party: [Name of Party 1] [Address] [Telephone/Fax Number] [Email address] [ON THE HEADED NOTEPAPER OF THE OBJECTING PARTY] The Dispute Board: [Name of DB member] [Address] [Telephone/Fax Number] [Email address] [[Name of DB Member 2] [Address] [Telephone/Fax Number] [Email address] [Name of DB Member 3] [Address] [Telephone/Fax Number] [Email address]] The Other Party: [Name of Party 2] [Address] [Telephone/Fax Number] [Email address] [[The Engineer/Employer’s Representative] [Address] [Telephone/Fax Number] [Email address]] [ [Relevant institution]: ] [[Institution name] [address]] [[telephone]] [[email address]] [NAME OF PROJECT]: procedural fairness objection and request for directions concerning [the Dispute Board’s conduct OR [DB member name’s] conduct as Dispute Board member][: [if the objection concerns only a particular step in the DB process, include brief details here]] We refer to the contract between the Objecting Party and the Other Party for [brief description of project] dated [date] (the Contract), which provides for the use of a dispute board (the Dispute Board). [The Contract incorporates the [relevant institutional dispute board rules] (the Applicable Rules)] [The Parties have agreed to use the [relevant institutional dispute board rules and details of where the parties agreed to use them] (the Applicable

Since its introduction in September 2021, the Solicitors Qualifying Examination (SQE) has been gradually replacing the training contract route to qualification and become the means of qualification following an apprenticeship. This Practice Note explains the SQE and implications for employers offering training and work experience to aspiring solicitors. It sets out the key elements of the SQE and the timeframes for qualification as a solicitor under this route. It also explains the transitional arrangements as the training contract route to qualification is phased out. For information on the training contract route to qualification, see subtopic: Training contracts. For information on the apprenticeship route to qualification, see Practice Note: Solicitor apprenticeships. For information on the work experience element of SQE, see Practice Note: Qualifying work experience (QWE). The SQE route to qualification In order to qualify as a solicitor under the SQE, the candidate must: • have a UK degree in any subject (or a qualification or experience that is equivalent to a degree—this would include a solicitor apprenticeship) • pass two SQE assessments • have

Set-off is a complex yet important concept in legal proceedings generally and for many different types of transaction. Independent set-off and transaction set-off can both be used as a defence in legal proceedings. For more information, see Practice Notes: Independent set-off and transaction set-off and Pleading set-off. In commercial transactions, transaction set-off will be an important right for a party who is claiming breach of contract as a defence to a claim for payment under that contract. Contracting parties may also specifically cater for set-off in their written contract, either by extending or limiting the scope of rights of set-off between them. For more information, see Practice Note: Contractual set-off. Contractual set-off, insolvency set-off and banker's set-off will be important for many finance transactions. For more information, see Practice Note: Set-off in finance transactions. Set-off is also frequently used in the construction industry to manage cash flow. For more information, see Practice Note: Set-off in construction. Set-off can also often arise within the context of landlord and tenant relations

This Practice Note provides practical guidance on the execution of documents by incorporated charities, focusing on execution of documents after 6 April 2008. It contains guidance on execution of documents by charities incorporated under the Companies Act 2006 (CA 2006), charitable incorporated organisations (CIOs) formed under section 204 of the Charities Act 2011 (CA 2011) and charity trustees that have incorporated under CA 2011, s 251 (Pt 12). For guidance on the execution of documents by unincorporated charities, see Practice Note: Execution formalities—unincorporated charities. In this Practice Note it is assumed the contract is in writing. 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. Each section or phase includes practical guidance, precedent clauses and Q&As relevant to that section. For more information, see: Execution collection. Incorporated charities Incorporated charities can be companies incorporated under CA 2006 or charitable incorporated organisations (CIOs) formed under CA 2011, s 204 (Pt 11). Incorporated charities may also include community benefit societies, bodies incorporated under royal charter

The first thing to do is to unearth the relevant contract. The notice will have been served pursuant a force majeure clause in that contract. The second is to  construe the clause. Force majeure clauses come in a great variety of forms. Its construction will depend on the particular contract and the particular business. Certain preconditions apply, eg are there stipulations as to the exercise of the clause, for example, does the supplier have to serve the notice within a particular time, or in a particular form. Has it observed these? If not, depending on the construction of the clause, the precondition may be classed as a condition precedent which would need to be followed to invoke the clause or as an intermediate term, the non-fulfilment of which does not deprive the supplier of the ability to invoke the clause. The customer needs to be careful not to waive such stipulations or act so as to give rise to an estoppel. The onus is on the

The general rule The reason why an offer cannot be withdrawn after it has been accepted is that it is the action of acceptance which gives rise to a binding contractual agreement. Once a contract exists, one party cannot simply withdraw from it on a whim, unless the terms of the contract allow them to. The case law supporting this proposition has a long history. Payne v Cave and Routledge v Grant both held that neither party was bound until both had assented. Byrne & Co v Van Tienhoven & Co held that the offer had been accepted before its withdrawal had been attempted, and therefore the withdrawal was ineffective—it is a clear authority for the proposition here. However, some offers will not give rise to a binding contract if accepted—for example, there may be no consideration. In the absence of an enforceable obligation there is nothing stopping the offeror from refusing to honour their offer, except that in the right circumstances an estoppel may

Key words or phrases referred to in these signing/authorisation limits are defined in the ‘Terms’ table—see section 1. 1 Terms Word or phrase Definition Contract A written or verbal agreement between two or more parties creating obligations that are enforceable or otherwise recognisable at law and binding on [Insert organisation’s name], regardless of whether it is specifically called a contract. Examples include:—leases—licences—guarantees—indemnities—agreements—letters of intent—memoranda of understanding—statements of work—non-disclosure (or confidentiality) agreements—click-to-accept online terms—’shrink-wrap’ licence agreements and extensions—amendments or variations to any Contracts Extraordinary Items Expenditure that is not included in Board-approved budgets, exceeds Board-approved budgets or is outside the normal course of business.Examples include:—guarantees—indemnities—the purchase, sale, exchange or transfer of complete or partial interests in real property— the lease or sub-lease of real property—contracts the term of which, including potential renewals, exceeds five years, regardless of Contract value—writing-off obsolete stock—ex-gratia payments—the settlement of legal action at a cost that equals or exceeds £[insert, eg 250,000] regardless of insurance coverage—[any

This Practice Note examines performance and testing under the 1999 editions of the Red, Yellow and Silver Books, the Gold Book 2008 and the Pink Book 2010. For detail on the 2017 editions of the Red, Yellow and Silver Books, see Practice Note: FIDIC contracts 2017—performance and testing requirements. One of the key concerns for both the employer and the contractor (the 'parties') is knowing when the works will be considered 'complete'. The employer will want to ensure that the works are fully constructed in accordance with the requirements of the contract and the contractor will want to know what these requirements are and the way to satisfy them. For this reason it is essential that the contract makes explicit exactly what performance requirements there are. Manner of execution Under clause 7.1 of the Red, Pink, Yellow and Silver Books the contractor is obliged to execute the works: • in the manner specified in the contract • in a proper workmanlike and careful manner, in accordance with recognised good practice, and • with properly equipped

This Practice Note considers agreements to agree, and why an agreement to agree certain contractual terms at a future date has traditionally been held to be unenforceable. It also looks at the circumstances in which courts have upheld contracts as enforceable despite the apparent lack of certainty as to their fundamental terms. Principle Traditionally, contracts which contain an agreement to agree certain contractual terms in the future have been held unenforceable as being too uncertain. The existence of a binding contract is determined by an objective test, which is whether: • on the basis of the evidence, the reasonable man would say that the parties were in agreement and had intended to create legal relations (the test disregards the parties’ own views), and • the contract is sufficiently certain so as to be enforceable Agreement For a contract to be binding, its terms must be sufficiently definite to enable the court to give them a practical meaning and, in particular, the terms must be enforceable without further agreement by the parties. The indicators that the parties

This Practice Note identifies the factors you should consider when advising a client where an issue or potential dispute has arisen in the operation of a joint venture (JV). It focuses on a majority-minority JV relationship established through a private limited company, the joint venture company (JVC). It should be read alongside Practice Note: Corporate joint venture dispute—dealing with deadlock: initial considerations. For general guidance on responding to a threatened dispute in a JV context, see Practice Note: Joint venture disputes—how to respond. Joint venture company disputes—initial considerations Whatever structure is used to establish the JV relationship, central to the relationship is the joint venture agreement (JVA) which sets out the JV parties' obligations to one another and which they can enforce as against each other. Needless to say, this is a contract between the parties and, as such, interpreting its provisions requires application of the general rules of contract interpretation. For guidance, see: Contract interpretation—overview. Claims that can arise under other types of

Introduction This Practice Note is part of our student series, aimed specifically at students undertaking their LLB. It examines the doctrine of mistake in the law of contract: the narrow set of circumstances in which the court will treat an apparent agreement as no agreement at all and declare the contract void from the outset. The Practice Note begins by explaining what mistake means as a legal term of art, and why it is far narrower than the everyday sense of the word. It sets out the rationale for the doctrine, which rests on the 19th century idea of consensus ad idem, and explains why the courts intervene only where the mistake relates to a fundamental fact existing at the moment the contract was made. The main body follows the three categories of operative mistake at common law. The first is common initial mistake, where both parties share the same erroneous belief, whether about the existence of the subject matter (Couturier v Hastie (1856) 5 HL Cas 673, now reflected in section 6 of the Sale of Goods

On a relevant transfer under the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 (TUPE 2006), SI 2006/246, transferred employees retain all the rights and obligations existing under their contracts of employment with the previous employer and these are transferred to the new employer. See Practice Note: TUPE—transfer of employees. Information on the effect of TUPE 2006, SI 2006/246 on the ability to vary terms and conditions of employment can be found in Practice Note: TUPE—variation of contract terms. Any purported variation of a contract of employment that is, or will be, transferred under TUPE 2006, SI 2006/246, reg 4(1) is void 'if the sole or principal reason for the variation is the transfer' (TUPE 2006, SI 2006/246,