I should know the answer to this but don't.
Looking at a warrant.
As it is written, one party warrants it will provide access to a property for the second party for second party to perform its scope of work under the contract. Included in that specific warrant (made by the first pasrty) the second party confirms it will keep the property secure.
The second party to the contract is not providing any warrants etc. That one sentence is the only part that mentions keeping the property secure.
Suppose the second party fails to keep the property secure, can the first party seek redress (if a loss is suffered etc), or does the fact the confirmation is included in a warrant made by first party cause any issues?
I would have thought the first party could seek redress but wanted to be sure. Also if it isn't clear that there is specific contractual redress could the first party argue tort of negligence or something similar.
Looking at a warrant.
As it is written, one party warrants it will provide access to a property for the second party for second party to perform its scope of work under the contract. Included in that specific warrant (made by the first pasrty) the second party confirms it will keep the property secure.
The second party to the contract is not providing any warrants etc. That one sentence is the only part that mentions keeping the property secure.
Suppose the second party fails to keep the property secure, can the first party seek redress (if a loss is suffered etc), or does the fact the confirmation is included in a warrant made by first party cause any issues?
I would have thought the first party could seek redress but wanted to be sure. Also if it isn't clear that there is specific contractual redress could the first party argue tort of negligence or something similar.
0 commentaires:
Enregistrer un commentaire