<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2008 (9) TMI 878 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160517</link>
    <description>A clause authorising only assessment or quantification of liquidated damages does not by itself make the underlying dispute on breach, delay, or liability an excepted matter. The contract here contained no specific final decision-maker for determining whether the supplier was in breach or whether delay was attributable to it, so that dispute remained arbitrable. The special conditions also did not override the general conditions, because the liquidated damages provision in clause 62 expressly referred back to the general conditions for rate and mode of quantification. The contractual dispute over delay and liability for liquidated damages was therefore fit for arbitration.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 15 Sep 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 04 Jun 2014 16:07:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=340005" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (9) TMI 878 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160517</link>
      <description>A clause authorising only assessment or quantification of liquidated damages does not by itself make the underlying dispute on breach, delay, or liability an excepted matter. The contract here contained no specific final decision-maker for determining whether the supplier was in breach or whether delay was attributable to it, so that dispute remained arbitrable. The special conditions also did not override the general conditions, because the liquidated damages provision in clause 62 expressly referred back to the general conditions for rate and mode of quantification. The contractual dispute over delay and liability for liquidated damages was therefore fit for arbitration.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 15 Sep 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160517</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>