Contract Law Report: Analysis of Contractual and Tort-related Issues

This report provides a comprehensive analysis of a contract law case involving Quashquell Construction Limited (QQ), focusing on contractual and tort-related issues arising from building refurbishment and the installation of a central heating system. The report identifies three key issues: breach of contract by Retro Salvagers Ltd (RSL) for delayed refurbishment, breach of contract and misrepresentation by Dapar Heating Systems Ltd (DHS) for faulty heating system installation, and tort-related issues due to employee injuries from the system explosion and a slip on the staircase. The report offers legal advice to QQ, Sally, Sean, and Amy regarding their potential claims, including claims for breach of contract, misrepresentation, and negligence, along with potential damages. It examines the elements of valid contracts, duties of care, and the application of English Contract and Tort Law to the specific circumstances of the case, providing a detailed breakdown of potential legal remedies and compensation.

Contract Law (tort)
ABC
[Pick the date]

1
Contents
Introduction...........................................................................................................................................2
Contractual and Tort-related Issues......................................................................................................3
Issue 1................................................................................................................................................3
Issue 2................................................................................................................................................4
Issue 3................................................................................................................................................5
Advise to QQ for the potential legal claims...........................................................................................6
Advise to Sally for the potential legal claims.........................................................................................9
Advise to Sean for the potential legal claims.......................................................................................10
Advise to Amy for the potential legal claims.......................................................................................11
Conclusion...........................................................................................................................................12

2
Introduction
The case mentions a company ‘Quashquell Construction Limited’ which is into the business
of developing the properties in Manchester and the company is registered in UK. The
company has been successful in all its past ten years’ projects. But, for the past one and a half
year, the business of the company is declining because of the fears associated with impending
BREXIT referendum and the possible implications that it could have on the business of the
company. So, in response to this fear as well as risk, the company decided to move to a new
location in Hull because it wanted to stay close to all its new projects which were based in
Hull. For its new business premises, the company bought an old Victorian building and
decided to start operations in it from March’ 1 2016. In addition to refurbishing the building
and making it useful for operations, the company wanted to install a central heating system in
it. QQ (Quashquell Construction Limited) entered into various contracts and agreements for
carrying out the activities associated with shifting in the building and for installation of the
heating system. But, this gave rise to some contractual and tort-related issues.
Therefore, the purpose of this report is to identify those issues and advise various people
involved in the case, i.e. QQ, Sally, Sean and Amy regarding their potential legal claims.

3
Contractual and Tort-related Issues
Issue 1
QQ entered into a contract with Retro Salvagers Ltd (RSL) for refurbishing the building for
£50000. The terms of contract stated that RSL would complete the work by 25th February
2016, failing in which, there will be a deduction of 4.5% of the payment to RSL for each day
till the completion is delayed. The deduction and deadline was strict because QQ had to fulfil
its contractual obligation under which he had to give vacant possession of the property in
Salford to a buyer.
But, the refurbishment was not completed on the due date by RSL and the shifting to the
Victorian building could not happen. But, QQ had to vacate the premises in Salford so they
shifted their office in a hotel in Hull for ten days and they incurred a cost of £5200 per day
(rent + profits).
This is a contractual issue because RSL failed to fulfil its contractual obligation i.e. it could
not complete the refurbishment by 25th February and it is a tort-related issue too because QQ
had to incur losses and additional costs due to the problem.

4
Issue 2
QQ entered into an agreement with Dapar Heating Systems Ltd (DHS) for installing the
central heating system by 25th February 2016 and if DHS failed in that, it had to pay £1200.
This contract was made on the basis of the statement made by one of the salesman of DHS
who told QQ that they have tried and tested this heating system and it is better than all the
competitors. Also, he mentioned that it is energy efficient and QQ will recover its installation
cost in two years if it gets this system installed.
But, DHS failed to install the system on the due date. Since, the building was cold and damp
and QQ had moved into it, so it hired mobile heaters and incurred a cost of £100 per day.
After installation of the system by DHS, it started malfunctioning in three weeks. When the
system was not functioning properly, QQ again had to incur costs on the mobile heaters. But,
the officials of DHS assured that the system will stabilise in few days which did not happen.
So, QQ demanded for an expert to look in it and an inspection was carried out by an
independent expert. After the examination of the system, and before the submission of the
assessment report by the expert, the heating system got exploded. When the expert submitted
his report, it revealed that the installation was not done properly and there were faults in it.
The report also stated that the system was not energy efficient and the reason for explosion of
the system was gas leakage.
This is a contractual issue because DHS could not fulfil its contractual obligation of installing
the system on time. The contract was made on the basis of the statement that was fraudulent
and miss-represented. Also, after the installation of the system, the claim of DHS that the
system will stabilise itself was false. The tort-related issue arises here because QQ had to
incur additional costs when it used the mobile heaters.

5
Issue 3
When the heating system exploded, Sally and Sean, the two employees of QQ suffered from
serious injuries. Then, Amy tried to escape from the room and used the new staircase built by
RSL, but she slipped because of the slippery surface of the stairs and her ankle got dislocated.
This is an issue because the employees of the company faced injuries due to the accidents
because of negligence of RSL and DHS. Some suffered from serious injuries and some from
minor. Thus, this is tort-related issue that has arouse in this case.

6
Advise to QQ for the potential legal claims
QQ can file the following legal claims:
 QQ entered into a valid contract with both DHS and RSL because the terms of
contract had all the elements of valid contact i.e. consideration was present, intent was
there, parties were not incapacitate to contract etc.1 When the valid contract was
formed, it was the duty of all the parties to fulfil their contractual obligations. RSL
had the obligation to refurnish the building on time and DHS had the obligation to
complete the process of installation on time. Since neither of the duties was performed
on time, so QQ has the right to claim damages from these companies. Under the
English Contact Law, when any party fails to perform his/her duty under the contract,
then it is termed as breach of contract2. The aggrieved party has the right to claim
damages if the breach happens3. Under the same law, the aggrieved party gets
compensation for damages which intends to help the party in making its loss good and
do not let the party suffer from the breach of contract4. So, QQ can sue both the
companies for breach of contract and can claim for damages from them. Also, it was
mentioned in the terms of contract with them that RSL was liable to pay damages to
QQ for every day the work gets delayed and DHS was also to pay lump sum damage
to QQ if the installation was not completed on time. Therefore, QQ can claim the
compensation from both the parties for delaying the contractual obligations. Also,
there was no valid reason of non-performance of their duty on time.
1 Simon Whittaker, 'Form And Substance In The Reception Of EC Directives Into English Contract
Law' (2007) 3 European Review of Contract Law.
2 Vanessa SIMS, 'Good Faith In English Contract Law Of Triggers And Concentric Circles' [2004]
Ankara Law Review.
3 Vanessa SIMS, 'Good Faith In English Contract Law Of Triggers And Concentric Circles' [2004]
Ankara Law Review.
4 Vanessa SIMS, 'Good Faith In English Contract Law Of Triggers And Concentric Circles' [2004]
Ankara Law Review.

7
 Due to non-fulfilment of contractual obligation by RSL, QQ had to incur extra cost of
staying in hotel. Also, the company suffered from losses during that time. In this case,
QQ will have to establish an entitlement to substantial damages for breach of
contract5. This provision is also provided under the English Contract law. But, to
obtain this, the injured party has to show that the loss that it has suffered is caused by
the breach of contract . Along with this, the type of loss needs to be recognized and
finally, the loss should not be too remote from the terms of contact or the obligation
under the contract6. In this case, QQ can claim the damages legally because it is clear
that the loss that it has suffered is due to the breach of contract, the loss is monetary
and it is not far from the contract, it is a direct result of non-performance of duty on
time by RSL and DHS. So, QQ is entitled to get compensation from both the parties.
This compensation will be separate from what they will pay as compensation under
the terms of contract. The aim of this remedy is to put QQ in the same or nearby
financial position that it would have been if the promise by the parties had been
fulfilled.
 QQ can sue DHS for misrepresentation. The English contract Law defines
misrepresentation as a false statement of fact that is made by one party in contract to
the other party which induces other party to enter in contract. When QQ contacted
DHS for the heating system, the salesman made a misrepresentation of the fact that
‘the system is tried and tested’ and ‘it is best among competitors’. He also said that ‘it
is energy efficient’. All these statements were proved to be false when the expert
submitted his inspection report. Due to these statements, QQ was induced to make a
contract with DHS. Therefore, it is clear that misrepresentation happened and made
5 Antoine Braci, 'Contract Law: An Introduction To The English Law Of Contract For The Civil Lawyer' (2015) 26
King's Law Journal.
6 B. F. P. and William R. Anson, 'The Principles Of The English Law Of Contract And Of Agency In Its Relation To
Contract' (1896) 44 The American Law Register and Review.

8
QQ enter in contract with DHS. Also, the energy efficiency clause was not expressed
in the written contract, but, it made QQ enter in contract. So, this will be considered in
the claim.
In this case, QQ can opt for rescission of contract which will set the contract aside
and will put QQ back in its original position where it was before the formulation of
contract7. Then, QQ can also ask for indemnity where the court can order DHS to pay
for the expenses that QQ incurred in complying with the terms of contract. For
example, the payment of mobile heaters that QQ made when the system did not work
properly after installation. Finally, QQ is also allowed to claim for damages. Since,
this is a fraudulent misrepresentation, so QQ has automatic right to claim the
damages. These damages can be claimed under the English contract law or under the
Misrepresentation Act of 19678.
 Lastly, QQ has the right to sue both the companies for not performing their duties in
the expected manner. This is because; three of the employees of QQ got injured due to
the negligence of RSL and DHS. There were the implied conditions of the contract
that whatever work they will do, it should not harm the people and should be done in
a proper way. But, due to the negligence of both the companies, the employees of QQ
suffered from serious injuries. So, QQ can also make them pay for the damages that
the company has suffered as a result of proving the expenses for treating the
employees as well as the cost that the company suffered due to the absence of
employees at work.
Advise to Sally for the potential legal claims
 Sally was an employee of QQ and got injured during the explosion of heating system.
She was not part of any contract between QQ and DHS but, under the English Tort
7 F. J. Odgers, 'Contract—Innocent Misrepresentation—Rescission' (1958) 16 The Cambridge Law Journal.
8 P. S. Atiyah and G. H. Treitel, 'MISREPRESENTATION ACT 1967' (1967) 30 The Modern Law Review.

9
Law, she can claim to get justice. This law governs the implicit civil responsibilities
that the people have towards each other and these responsibilities are not necessarily
laid out in contracts9. Under this law, Sally can get legal remedy and she can also get
monetary compensation because she has been damaged by DHS’s failure to meet the
implicit responsibility that was, to provide a safe and secured heating system.
Sally can make DHS liable for negligence under the tort law because a breach of
duty of care has happened which DHS owed to all the employees of QQ. To install a
safe system and to take care of the injuries to people, DHS was responsible for the
general duty of care. In Donoghue v Stevenson, Donoghue was given compensation
for illness that she suffered when she consumed a decomposed snail in the ginger beer
bottle supplied by Stevenson. It was held that Stevenson was responsible for taking
care of the bottles and the contents that he was supplying to people10. Similarly, in this
case DHS was responsible to take care of all the people who were exposed to that
system. So, Sally can claim for monetary compensation from DHS for the expenses
that she incurred in her treatment and she can also sue the company and ask the court
to suspend its operations in future.
9 Donal Nolan, 'Damage In The English Law Of Negligence' (2013) 4 Journal of European Tort Law.
10 T. Ellis Lewis, 'Negligence—Real Property—Liability Of Builder To Tenant's Wife— Donoghue V. Stevenson'
(1963) 21 The Cambridge Law Journal.

10
Advise to Sean for the potential legal claims
 Sean was also an employee of QQ and got injured during the explosion of heating
system. She was also not the part of any contract between QQ and DHS but, under the
English Tort Law, she can claim to get justice. As mentioned earlier, this law
governs the implicit civil responsibilities that the people have towards each other and
these responsibilities are not necessarily laid out in contracts. Just like Sally, Sean can
also get legal remedy under this law, and she can also get monetary compensation
because she has been damaged by DHS’s failure to meet the implicit responsibility
that was, to provide a safe and secured heating system.
In the similar fashion of Sally, Sean can also make DHS liable for negligence under
the tort law because a breach of duty of care has happened which DHS owed to all
the employees of QQ. To install a safe system and to take care of the injuries to
people, DHS was responsible for the general duty of care. In Gregg v Scott, Gregg
was given compensation for injury that he suffered due to the incorrect installation of
fan that was done by Scott11. It was held that Scott was responsible for taking care of
the installation process of fan and he was liable to all the people who were exposed to
the working of that fan12. Similarly, in this case DHS was responsible to take care of
all the people who were exposed to that system. So, Sean can claim for monetary
compensation from DHS for the expenses that she incurred in her treatment and she
can also sue the company and ask the court to suspend its operations in future.
11 Holger Spamann, 'Monetary Liability For Breach Of The Duty Of Care?' (2016) 8 Journal of Legal Analysis.
12 ‘Tort Liability For Breach Of Statutory Duty' (1913) 26 Harvard Law Review.

11
Advise to Amy for the potential legal claims
 There is an element under the Tort Law, which is called ‘duty of care’. These are all
the circumstances and relationships that the law recognises and they give rise to the
legal duty of taking care of the people who have the potential to get affected by the
activities or duties performed by one party13. When such care is not taken, the
defendant has the liability to pay the damages to the party who has suffered some loss
or damage. In this case, the RSL is liable to Amy because it was the duty of RSL to
provide appropriate surface to the stairs so that no accident happens. But, the duty was
not taken care and the surface was slippery which made Amy slip and she was
injured. When the stairs were made, RSL was responsible to take care of the fact that
whether everything was made properly or not and whether the surfaces were safe
from accidents or not. Since RSL neglected it duty and became the reason for the
accident, therefore, Amy can sue the company and claim damages from it.
13 AVIHAY DORFMAN, 'Can Tort Law Be Moral?' (2010) 23 Ratio Juris.