Law既功課

1.All types of contracts must be in written form for them to be legally binding.
Ridiculous!!! The law recognizes oral contract! That is beyond reasonable doubt! The law is only concerned with the existence of offer and acceptance and consideration and intention to create legal intention when it comes to contract. An oral contract can easily satisfy these elements.

2.Therelationship between "main contractors and sub-subcontractor" is thatmain contractors shall not be responsible for all faults committed bythose sub-contractors.
This proposition is partly correct.

The main contractor cannot be held vicariously liable for a sub-contractor's tort in the course of employment since a sub-contractor is not its employee.

However, if the main contractor is negligent in the supervision or in the selection of the sub-contractor, it can be held liable.

3.All terms of construction contracts must beexpressed in writing because of its substantial values and complexityin job nature.
False. As said above, the law recognizes oral contracts. However, in practice it is pretty much true; in reality most terms of construction contracts are expressed in writing. However, you may be able to think of exceptions. For example, when we have our houses redecorated, not many of us will enter into written agreements.

1. Oral agreement can be binding provided that other requirement for legally binding contract is satisfied. However, in particular transfer of interest on land and equitable interest in trust requires written document. A pure oral agreement is not enough.

2. Employer would be responsible for the negligence of his employee. If the main-contractor remain control over the sub-contract, he will be liable in common law. But in fact, under most conditions of contract between the client and main contractor, main cotnractor would be liable for his sub-contractor.

3. Under most conditions of contract in construction industry, oral variation order could be served by the client. But anyway written documentation is preferred.