North Star Ltd vs. Howard Hawks Ltd Assignment Sample

Introduction

Background

The conflict between Howard Hawks Ltd (HH) and North Star Ltd (NS) is a prime illustration of how disputes arise in commercial contracts related to building and quantity surveying services. This research explores the intricacies of a financial dispute resulting from rendered services and the consequent failure to pay obligations, represented by an unpaid invoice totalling USD111,000.00. The contract that Howard Hawks Ltd. signed on May 5, 2022, enlisting North Star Ltd.'s services, is at the centre of this disagreement. NS, an expert in the field of quantity surveying, was hired to conduct a thorough analysis of the project's design and construction schedule. In addition to guaranteeing financial efficiency, this contractual framework also aimed to mitigate risks and precisely define project expectations.

Part A

Draft Communication

Subject: Preliminary Case Management Procedural Meeting - North Star Ltd v Howard Hawks Ltd

As the RICS-appointed expert in the case of North Star Ltd. v. Howard Hawks Ltd., I am writing in this capacity. I have been assigned the responsibility of conducting an expert determination in this dispute in accordance with the terms of Clause 15 of the Agreement dated 5 May 2022 and in response to the application submitted by North Star Ltd on August 1, 2023.

In order to commence this procedure, I suggest having an initial case management procedural meeting. This meeting is essential for laying the foundation for the decision-making process, guaranteeing protocol clarity, and giving each side a chance to state their case. A draught agenda for this meeting is attached.

The key points for discussion will include

It will address a number of important topics at the next preliminary case management procedural conference about the disagreement between Howard Hawks Ltd. and North Star Ltd. in order to guarantee an exhaustive and open resolution procedure. To encourage mutual understanding, we will first give a summary of the disagreement, emphasising the unpaid invoice of USD111, 000.00 and briefly restating the main points. A discussion of the process and timing will come next, during which we will lay out precise guidelines for the submission and response process and make sure everyone is aware of important dates and benchmarks. We'll spend a good deal of time talking about the evidence and documentation that are needed, including what kinds of documents like contracts, invoices, and pertinent correspondence are needed and how they should be submitted. Establishing communication protocols will involve deciding on the most effective means and frequency of communication to guarantee a seamless and effective exchange of information throughout the process. Furthermore, the meeting will give the parties a chance to ask any immediate questions and receive answers, resolving any doubts or issues about jurisdiction, procedure, or the dispute itself. By ensuring that all parties are aware of the expectations, procedures, and deadlines, this structured method seeks to provide a strong foundation for the settlement process and enable a just and efficient resolution of the dispute.

Preliminary Meeting Logistics

Date: 25th August 2023

Time: 2:00 PM GMT

Platform: Zoom (a link will be provided prior to the meeting)

Duration: Approximately 2 hours

Addressing the Issue of Non-participation by Howard Hawks Ltd

I am aware that Howard Hawks Ltd. has indicated that it is reluctant to take part in this process because of worries about jurisdiction and contractual responsibilities. This is my chance to stress how crucial their participation is to a thorough and impartial assessment of the case. All points of view are taken into account during the expert determination process, and their opinions are crucial to arriving at a well-rounded conclusion.

Terms of Business for Expert Determination

• Appointment and Role of the Expert
• Expert appointed by RICS: Quincy Stevens MSc FRICS FCIARB FAE.
• Role: To act impartially in determining the dispute.
• Jurisdiction
• Basis of jurisdiction as per Clause 15 of the Agreement dated 5 May 2022.
• Procedure for Determination
• Expert to decide the procedure for determination.
• Both parties have an opportunity for making representations.
• Submissions and Representations
• Details on how and when submissions and representations should be made.
• Deadlines for the submission of evidence and statements.
• Communication
• Established methods and frequency of communication.
• Protocols for raising questions or requesting clarifications.

Key Items for the Procedural Meeting

As the designated RICS Expert for the dispute between Howard Hawks Ltd. and North Star Ltd., the suggested terms and the preliminary case management procedural meeting suggested terms and the preliminary case management procedural meeting, as the designated RICS Expert for the dispute between Howard Hawks Ltd. and North Star Ltd. has been intended to create an organized and transparent procedure for resolving the outstanding invoice issue.

Appointment Confirmation:

Publicly announcing the appointment highlights the legitimacy of the RICS Expert Determination process and fosters confidence in all parties involved. It provides Howard Hawks Ltd. and North Star Ltd. with the assurance that the proceedings are being overseen by a qualified and seasoned professional.

Scope and Jurisdiction:

The precise topics and problems that fall under the purview of the expert determination procedure should be stated in clear terms. In addition, both North Star Ltd. and Howard Hawks Ltd. will be informed of this for their consideration. Furthermore, emphasises the authority given to the appointed expert and the jurisdiction of the Expert Determination process. Moreover, make certain that everyone involved is aware of the expert's decision-making authority's boundaries and scope.

Confidentiality Agreement:

Maintaining confidentiality is essential for safeguarding trade secrets, commercially sensitive information, and any other sensitive facts disclosed during the decision-making process. It guarantees that data revealed throughout the processes is neither mishandled nor given to uninvited parties. Clear and concise confidentiality agreements promote honest and open communication between the parties. In addition, when parties are guaranteed the highest level of confidentiality, they could be more inclined to divulge information.

Part B

Introduction

Brief Overview

I have been designated by the RICS as an independent expert in the case of North Star Ltd (NS) vs. Howard Hawks Ltd (HH) to resolve the disagreement that has developed between these two parties. My role, as established under Clause 15 of the Terms of Business agreed upon by NS and HH, is to evaluate the presented facts, review the contractual obligations, and render a decision that is fair, impartial, and based on the principles and practices of quantity surveying and contractual law.

The dispute is centered on an unpaid invoice that IS sent to HH for USD 111,000.00. It is claimed that this invoice is still unpaid even though services were rendered in accordance with the terms of the agreement that was signed on May 5, 2022. NS claims that HH has not complied with its payment responsibilities, despite the fact that the services were provided in line with the terms that were agreed upon. However, HH contests this claim citing inconsistencies in the procedure and calls into doubt the validity of the claim because certain contractual requirements specifically, the presence of a legitimate purchase order have not been met.

Subsequent correspondence and incomplete agreements between the parties, which have not succeeded in resolving the payment dispute, have added to the case's complexity. It is my duty as the designated expert to sift through these layers of communications, understandings, and contractual responsibilities in order to reach a conclusion that preserves the principles of fairness and contractual adherence.

Scope of Determination

The purpose of this decision is to evaluate, examine, and settle the disagreement between Howard Hawks Ltd (HH) and North Star Ltd (NS) over the unpaid invoice for USD111, 000.00. The decision will be made in compliance with the conditions of the contract, which is dated May 5, 2022, with a particular emphasis on the sections that pertain to expert determination. to determine the validity of Invoice No. 1357, dated 06/06/2022, by the conditions of the contract between HH and NS. Examining the contractual duties and determining whether the services were provided by the terms specified will be part of this. To assess each party's adherence to the terms of the contract, paying special attention to the purchase order issuing procedure, billing procedures, and any agreed-upon conditions of payment.

The key perspective is to take into account any NS and HH agreements, understandings, or communications that may affect the dispute in the future. This involves going over any stated debt, partial payments, and agreed-upon payment schedules. To answer HH's assertions about whether or not these allegations are relevant to the payment dispute, and about the authority of persons to sign contracts or make commitments on behalf of the company. to determine how the expert determination process's costs will be divided in line with Clause 15.9 of the Terms of Business. Except in cases of clear error, the decision rendered will be binding on the parties by Clause 15.7.

Details of Appointment

Appointment Background

In response to the dispute between North Star Ltd (NS) and Howard Hawks Ltd (HH), I was appointed as an independent expert by the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) on 15 August 2023. This appointment is the result of an application submitted on August 1, 2023, by North Star Ltd., in accordance with Clause 15 of the Agreement of May 5, 2022, which mandates the use of expert determination to resolve disputes.

In accordance with the terms of this paragraph, I, Quincy Stevens MSc FRICS FCIARB FAE, a senior quantity surveyor with more than 20 years of experience in the field, am responsible for conducting an unbiased analysis of the dispute centred around an unpaid invoice for USD111, 000.00.

Expert Qualifications

Being a Fellow of the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors (FRICS), an accolade that attests to my professionalism and moral principles in surveying, further validates my expertise. My skill in arbitration and alternative conflict resolution techniques is further demonstrated by my fellowship with the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators (FCIARB), which is important in expert determination scenarios. As a Fellow of the Academy of Experts (FAE), I am recognized for my ability to objectively analyze and resolve complicated conflicts by offering expert testimonyy and opinions. My dedication to upholding the highest standards of impartiality and professional ethics, along with my continued professional development, guarantee that I am qualified to handle the complexities of this case and provide a resolution that is not only just and equitable but also compliant with the most recent industry practices and legal advancements.

Get Extra 10% OFF on your WhatsApp order!

use my discount

Jurisdiction and Methodology

Jurisdictional Basis

The legal framework supporting the expert determination in the conflict between North Star Ltd and Howard Hawks Ltd is found in Clause 15 of the contract, which was signed on May 5, 2022, and stipulates that disputes will be settled by expert determination. The foundation of my authority to decide this case is this provision. This provision states that if there is a disagreement, the problem is referred to an impartial expert in this example, one nominated by the RICS for a legally enforceable decision.

Moreover, the contract expressly specifies that it is governed by the laws of England and Wales. However, the appropriate legislation will be one that I am familiar with for the purposes of this conclusion, as agreed upon by both parties. By ensuring that the legal framework used in the decision falls within my area of competence, this decision makes it possible for the dispute to be resolved with greater knowledge and accuracy.

The jurisdictional foundation influences the character and extent of the decision and is more than just a formality in the process. It guarantees that the legal structure is acknowledged and approved by both parties and that the decision-making process adheres to the provisions of the contract. As the expert, it is my responsibility to fairly interpret and implement these clauses, making sure that the decision is both reasonable and compliant with the legal and contractual restrictions outlined in the agreement.

Summary of Dispute

Parties Involve

Howard Hawks Ltd and North Star Ltd are the involved parties in these selected disputes. Mr. Sonny Day from Wringem Collections Ltd represented North Star Ltd. He has applied for expert determination to the RICS related to USD 111,000.00 as an outstanding invoice including costs and interest. Another side, Mr. Simon Ho represented Howard Hawks Ltd, disputes the RICS jurisdiction and also claimed that there is no agreement between both parties to maintain dispute resolution. This disagreement mainly revolves around invoice no. 1357 dated on 06/06/2022 upto date 04/07/2022.

Nature of Dispute

The disputes between NS and HH occur around an outstanding invoice of USD 111,000. This disputes details referred by NS to the RICS for suitable and expert determination process, alleging by HH for non-payment. The basic nature of the disputes materialise to revolve on the part of contractual obligations to HH to pay the invoiced amount of the company as outlined in the entire agreement on 5th May 2022. A valid contract exists as the key contention, and helps to form the basis of the invoiced sum. In this aspect, the expert determination process is considered as the most important factor.

Review of the Agreement and Applicable Law

An important part of the decision-making process in resolving the conflict between Howard Hawks Ltd (HH) and North Star Ltd (NS) is a careful review of the agreement dated May 5, 2022. Understanding the responsibilities, rights, and expectations of each party depends on this agreement. The agreement outlines the precise services that NS will deliver, such as a thorough design review, construction planning, and Bill of Quantities preparation. The disagreement over the unpaid invoice must be resolved by determining whether NS performed these services by the terms of the agreement. To ascertain if NS's demands for payment are compliant with the terms of the contract, it is important to review the agreement's provisions about payment schedules, conditions, and amounts, including the specifics of Invoice No. 1357. The agreement's clause 15 describes the expert decision procedure for resolving disputes. This section, which outlines the expert's role, the appointment procedure, and the decision's binding nature, serves as the cornerstone of the present expert determination process.

Although the law of England and Wales governs the contract, it has been decided to use a legal framework that the expert is familiar with for this conclusion. This method guarantees that the legal interpretation and settlement procedure are carried out within an understandable and pertinent legal framework. As decided upon by both parties, we are functioning inside a legal framework that I am familiar with for this determination. By taking this technique, I can make sure that the legal interpretations and solutions I provide are based on a legal system that I am knowledgeable with, which will increase the determination's relevance and accuracy. The choice to deviate from England & Wales originally specified governing law in favor of a more recognizable legal framework is intended to guarantee that the complexities of the dispute are handled within a legal framework that the expert fully understands, thereby enabling a more knowledgeable and efficient resolution process.

Agreement Examination

Examining the contract dated May 5th, 2022 in detail is crucial to resolving the disagreement between North Star Ltd (NS) and Howard Hawks Ltd (HH). Understanding the terms of the partnership and the parties' responsibilities depends heavily on this contract. The start of the contract and its terms, which specify the precise nature of the work that NS was required to do, especially regarding design review and construction planning, is important areas of focus. To ascertain if the terms of the agreement are being followed and whether HH's nonpayment of the invoice amounts to a breach of contract, a thorough review of the payment conditions is essential, especially concerning Invoice No. 1357. Clause 15, which deals with dispute resolution, is also very important because it states how this expert conclusion will be made, what the expert's responsibilities are, and how binding the result will be. Even if the contract is governed by the laws of England and Wales, the expert is using a legal framework that is familiar to them for this determination, therefore it is important to understand how this adjustment may affect how the contract is interpreted and used. The foundation of the decision-making process is this thorough contract assessment, which guarantees an equitable and transparent outcome consistent with the parties' initial contractual obligations.

Applicable Law

In respect of this, it can be stated that contract law in the UK has been applied in order to promote the aspects related to the case. The principle of the contract formation and terms has also been applied in these aspects and it is identified that the legal analysis includes the start date in the agreement as it specifies the perspectives related to the agreement. Therefore, it is also to be stated that offer and acceptance are crucial for the enhancement of the contract and mutual intent in the agreement has also been specifying the perspectives of contract binding. Furthermore, obligation and performance have also been playing crucial roles in the enhancement of the contract and it is also to be stated that North Star Limited has been providing the services of the contract.

Breach of contract is another perspective of the lawful excuse to breach the contract. Furthermore, it is also identified that legal analysis has been determining the remedies of the breach of the parties. The interpretation of any unclear phrases in the contract would be guided by the legal context. Finding the parties' original purpose is the goal, which is frequently accomplished by looking at the contract as a whole. Although England and Wales law was designated as the governing law in the original contract, the expert's understanding of a different legal framework is being used to make this conclusion. This may entail common legal concepts like reasonableness in contractual relations, fairness, and good faith. Any further correspondence or agreements that might have included new clauses or altered the initial terms would be taken into account.

Submission Analysis

North Star Ltd's Submission

NS sent HH Invoice 1357 on June 6, 2022, asking for payment of USD 150,000.00, of which USD 39,000.00 had already been paid. There were 28 days for payment terms. No money or Payless Notice has been received as of yet. In addition, it has been noted that in a conversation with Mr. Manuel King of HH on August 4, 2022, Alan Nominal of NS said that there had been payment difficulties and that they intended to settle the matter as soon as possible. AN requested, rather than receiving money at the end of September, 50% now and 50% at the end of September. On August 9, 2022, the AN internal confirmation was given to the NS accounts team and HH. Mr. King replied to AN's email request for an update on September 28, 2022, and that has been sent to HH once more. Furthermore, it has been perceived that the internal confirmation has been made in the context of the North Star Ltd's.

Howard Hawks Ltd's Position

Howard Hawks Ltd's Position has been identified in the jurisdiction as the inactive process that has denied the invoice prepared against itself. In addition, it has been noted that the key concerns of the invoice dispute have been rising and spreading in the specific targeted market area. The disagreement over an unpaid invoice for USD111,000.00 brought up by North Star Ltd ("NS") has been disputed by Howard Hawks Ltd ("HH''). HH claims that employee Berry Shortcake did not have the right to sign a contract on the company's behalf. A proposed Purchase Order (PO) is mentioned that HH asserts has been necessary in order for there to be a legally enforceable agreement. A statement made by HH, the data and planned strategy presented by NS has been exaggerated and unnecessary. HH highlights a lack of communication regarding NS's work's inapplicability and worthlessness to the suggested system. In the event that the matter escalates the HH makes it crystal clear that it will defend any additional actions and will pursue reimbursement for its legal expenses.HH acknowledges that Barry Shortcake gave NS instructions, possibly acting beyond the scope of his official duties. Hence, HH emphasises that Barry Shortcake attested to the requirement that a purchase order be included in any legally enforceable deal.

Evidence and Findings

Evidence Reviewed

For a thorough understanding and impartial decision in the North Star Ltd. vs. Howard Hawks Ltd. case, a careful examination of the evidence submitted is necessary. The principal contract dated May 5, 2022 which lays out the terms of service and payment requirements is one piece of evidence. Invoice No. 1357 issued by North Star Ltd. is at the centre of the dispute; therefore, it has been provided with detailed analysis and any supported evidence must be carefully examined. The two parties' extensive correspondence which includes letters, emails, and verbal exchanges is also very important, especially the exchanges that centre on the disputed invoice and the services rendered. To confirm that Howard Hawks Ltd. made any payments, payment records, including bank statements, have been reviewed. Job progress reports and internal emails, among other internal data from North Star Ltd., offer insight into the management and execution of the contracted job. Both parties have provided written declarations outlining their respective defences and claims, providing insight into their different points of view.

Furthermore, all supporting documentation for any modifications to the terms of the invoice or agreed-upon payment plans has been thoroughly examined. Analysing Howard Hawks Ltd.'s confirmations or agreements on updated payment dates or amounts falls under this category. To comprehend the ramifications for the enforceability of contracts, evidence about the authority of persons such as Barry Shortcake in making commitments on behalf of Howard Hawks Ltd. has been carefully examined. The foundation of the analysis is this extensive collection of evidence, which supports the ultimate conclusion and helps piece together the events leading up to the conflict.

Findings

Several significant conclusions have been drawn from the information examined in the conflict between Howard Hawks Ltd (HH) and North Star Ltd (NS). Furthermore, in the beginning of all, NS has complied with the terms of the contract as stated in the May 5, 2022 agreement, particularly about the work's scope. The services provided by this agreement are in line with NS's Invoice No. 1357. Additionally, the evidence shows that HH made partial payments on this invoice indicating that the debt was acknowledged. HH hasn't, however, paid the entire amount due on the invoice. The parties' correspondence indicates that they have discussed working out a payment schedule therefore, HH has not consistently followed through on these modifications.

There is insufficient proof to firmly bolster HH's denial of authority, therefore the question of Barry Shortcake's ability to sign legally binding agreements on the company's behalf remains open. An important aspect to note is that HH failed to contest the invoice or submit a formal pay-less notice within the time range specified in the contract. While HH raised questions about their adherence to acceptable commercial practices, NS showed a desire to negotiate and behaved in good faith throughout the exchanges. Meanwhile, HH only acknowledged a portion of the obligation and did not make the agreed-upon payments. These conclusions emphasise the importance of taking into account not only the contractual framework but also the acts and communications of the parties concerned to make an equitable and well-informed decision in this dispute.

Determination

Decision

In the part of Howard Hawks Ltd's failure to grant for actively participating, the expert determiner of this determination process agreed for a thorough review of all the information provided by North Star Ltd. The entire determination process is embedded in English law and circumvents all the decisions related to the outstanding invoice dispute of USD 111,000 from the side of HH Ltd. The expert determiner named Quincy Stevens supplicates his determination authority for examining all the presented company evidence related to the disputed invoice, examining the argument and all the issues in the written decision of the company. All the decisions between both the parties and conforming about the elicit implementation, several and joint liabilities for fees, and established expert determination process adherence. All the outcomes define informed and fair resolution in the disputed circumstances.

Rationale

The Expert determination Agreement process maintains a structured process for settling the entire disputes in between NS and HH. This process helps to address all the steps such as determination timelines, case preparation and Experts determiner's power.

Costs and Interest

Cost Determination

The cost of determination in between Howard Hawks Ltd (HH) and North Star Ltd (NS) will be built on free schedule outlines as per the Annex 2 of the Expert determination agreement process. This process will be paid by an hourly rate, and both the parties need to pay jointly these liable fees. All the payment process required as per the notification process of the expert determination system. In this aspect Expert determiners continue the legal rights to withhold the entire decision before all the payment is received.

Allocation of Costs

As per the details of the proposed Expert Determination Agreement, all types allocation process of cost for maintaining the determination process between HH and NS would be several and joint. Both the companies are liable mutually for the entire Expert Determiner's payment as defined in clause 7.4 of the determinant agreement. All this prospectus confirms the shared responsibilities related to every type of financial aspect for the determination process.

Conclusion

Summary of Determination

There have been several decisions made in the context of the submissions from both “North Star Ltd (''NS”) and Howard Hawks Ltd (“HH '' ')' ' and considering the relevant contractual agreements.

Contractual Authority:

The contractual authority has been found as the major player in order to resolve the dispute effectively. In addition, it has been perceived that although Howard Hawks Ltd. argues Barry Shortcake's capacity to engage in a contract it has been recognised that internal conflicts regarding employee authority have been found as major concerns that could be figured out more specifically to the organisation. Furthermore, the determination is centred on the contractual agreement instead of the internal workings of the organisation. Hence, it could be stated that the contractual authority has been required to be involved in the contractual agreement in order to stop disputes arising in future from the perspectives of the organisation.

Purchase Order Requirement:

The necessity of a purchase order, as insisted upon by Howard Hawks Ltd, is evaluated in the context of the contractual arrangement. The ruling makes it clear that a purchase order has not been specifically needed to be submitted in order for payment under the terms of the business. Therefore, the contractual duties remain enforceable even if a formal Purchase Order is missing.

Communication and Agreement:

It has been noted that NS attempted to facilitate payment in a reasonable manner, including by suggesting a repayment schedule in order to examine the disparities in communication. In addition, it has been conceived that the correspondences also demonstrate the promise of payment in order to fulfil the payment. Therefore, communication is one of the mediums that has been made in order to make the platform to make the agreement between the parties.

Loss and Damage:

The decision recognises that North Star Ltd. has lost money as a result of Howard Hawks Ltd.'s inability to pay the outstanding payments. The amount of USD 111,000.00 is due to NS. The disagreement on NS's work's applicability and thoroughness to the suggested plan is taken into account. The determination states that there have been no problems or disagreements with NS's work during the project and that there has been no special payment terms based on the value or thoroughness of the work specified in the terms of business.

Final Statements

The claims made by North Star Ltd. have been found confirmed, and Howard Hawks Ltd. is ordered to pay the remaining sum plus interest and the expert's fees. The ruling highlights the importance that it is to abide by the conditions of the contract and acknowledges NS's legitimate efforts to make payment easier. In addition, the decision grant's interest on the outstanding invoice amount at a fair rate of 10% annually. Furthermore, the Expert's costs and expenses are also instructed to be covered by Howard Hawks Ltd.

References

• Al-Breiki H and others, ‘Trustworthy Blockchain Oracles: Review, Comparison, and Open Research Challenges' (2020) 8 IEEE Access 85675
• Avzurni IS and Nuroini I, ‘THE PAYMENT of WAGES for OUTSOURCED WORKERS of PT CAREFASTINDO' [2023] Acitya Wisesa (Journal Of Multidisciplinary Research) 16 <https://journal.jfpublisher.com/index.php/jmr/article/view/394> accessed 11 November 2023
• Belesparadisecollege, ‘Advanced Project Financing Structuring Risk Second Edition' (2022) <http://portal.belesparadisecollege.edu.et:8080/library/bitstream/123456789/2829/1/10.Advanced%20Project%20Financing%2C%20Structuring%20Risks%20%28%20PDFDrive%20%29.pdf>
• Calvanese Strinati E and Barbarossa S, ‘6G Networks: Beyond Shannon towards Semantic and Goal-Oriented Communications' (2021) 190 Computer Networks 107930
• Chen W and Zheng M, ‘Multi-Objective Optimization for Pavement Maintenance and Rehabilitation Decision-Making: A Critical Review and Future Directions' (2021) 130 Automation in Construction 103840
• Heinonline, ‘Redirecting...' (heinonline.org2021) <https://heinonline.org/hol-cgi-bin/get_pdf.cgi?handle=hein.journals/tndl97§ion=7> accessed 11 November 2023
• ——, ‘Redirecting...' (heinonline.org2023) <https://heinonline.org/hol-cgi-bin/get_pdf.cgi?handle=hein.journals/nmlr53§ion=14> accessed 11 November 2023
• Kausi OR, ‘The Contribution of Contract Administrators towards Prevention of Escalation of Contractors' Claims into Disputes.' (erepository.uonbi.ac.ke2019) <http://erepository.uonbi.ac.ke/handle/11295/152835> accessed 11 November 2023
• Macaulay S, ‘The Real and the Paper Deal: Empirical Pictures of Relationships, Complexity and the Urge for Transparent Simple Rules' [2003] Stewart Macaulay: Selected Works 415
• Manni F and Faccia A, ‘The Business Going Concern: Financial Return and Social Expectations' [2020] Sustainable Development and Social Responsibility—Volume 1 201
• Nanayakkara S and others, ‘Blockchain and Smart Contracts: A Solution for Payment Issues in Construction Supply Chains' (2021) 8 Informatics 36
• Nurzahiroh K and Putri E, ‘The Sharia Banking Dispute Settlement Forum as the Principle of Freedom of Contract Post Decision of the Constitutional Court No. 93/PUU-X/2012' (2023) 3 Research Horizon 454 <https://lifescifi.com/journal/index.php/RH/article/view/159> accessed 11 November 2023
• Pan CA and others, ‘Comparing the Perceived Legitimacy of Content Moderation Processes: Contractors, Algorithms, Expert Panels, and Digital Juries' (2022) 6 Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 1
• Pan Y and Zhang L, ‘Roles of Artificial Intelligence in Construction Engineering and Management: A Critical Review and Future Trends' (2021) 122 Automation in Construction 103517
• Sigalov K and others, ‘Automated Payment and Contract Management in the Construction Industry by Integrating Building Information Modeling and Blockchain-Based Smart Contracts' (2021) 11 Applied Sciences 7653
• ——, ‘Automated Payment and Contract Management in the Construction Industry by Integrating Building Information Modeling and Blockchain-Based Smart Contracts' (2021) 11 Applied Sciences 7653
• Thiel A, Garrick DE and Blomquist WA, Governing Complexity: Analyzing and Applying Polycentricity (Cambridge University Press 2019) <https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=ZNGoDwAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA21&dq=The+jurisdictional+foundation+influences+the+character+and+extent+of+the+decision+and+is+more+than+just+a+formality+in+the+process.&ots=v86MtBPRaA&sig=vmkyXuiXKzOePMc7j8dgmfuRu-U> accessed 11 November 2023
• Whitney RL and others, ‘Trust and Shared Decision?Making among Individuals with Multiple Myeloma: A Qualitative Study' (2021) 10 Cancer Medicine 8040
• Willis D, ‘DOCTOR of PHILOSOPHY Digital Cinema and the Legacy of George Lucas' (2021) <https://pureadmin.qub.ac.uk/ws/portalfiles/portal/242523842/Final_Thesis_Draft_Daniel_Willis_.pdf>
• Woo K and others, ‘Society for Vascular Surgery Appropriate Use Criteria for Management of Intermittent Claudication' (2022) 76 3
• Yumna SA, ‘HOW to PROMOTE MEDIATION of CONSTRUCTION DISPUTES in the UAE' [2020] bspace.buid.ac.ae <https://bspace.buid.ac.ae/handle/1234/1739> accessed 11 November 2023
• Zamoff M, ‘Safeguarding Confidential Arbitration Awards in Uncontested Confirmation Actions' (2022) 59 505