Unidroit Principles in Construction Law Name of the Student Name

Running head: CONSTRUCTION LAW
Construction Law
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note

1CONSTRUCTION LAW
Answer 1
In construction cases, contracts are entered into by the parties to provide consultancy
services, design services and also to produces guidelines for entering into agreements. Australian
law while complying with Unidroit principles states the remedies for breach of contract and also
gives the guidelines regarding entering into a contract (Vogenaur and Kleinheisterkamp 2015).
The elements of a contract are that there shall be an offer and a subsequent acceptance to
constitute a valid contract (Bonell 2018). The elements of a contract can be found in the case of
LMI Australasia Pty Ltd v Baulderstone Hornibrook Pty Ltd [2001] NSWSC
886, where the case was concerned with the management of a Stadium. In
1997, Baulderstone (a construction company) attempted to bid for the
contract to construct and operate the stadium. On or about 27 June 1997, a
written heads of agreement was entered into, and on 1 September 1997, the
Docklands Authority announced that the Docklands Stadium Consortium Pty
Ltd (“DSC”) won the bid and DSC would be responsible for the management
of the stadium (Hepburn 2015). The case dealt with a breach of contract and
how DSC had failed to take proper precaution (Valdes 2015). The LMIA was
appointed as the manager and the applicant claimed that the breach of the
contract also constitut3ed a breach of agreement(Vogenauer 2016). A claim
was instituted against the construction company holding that the heads of
the agreement had constituted a breach of agreement. This was not only a
breach contract but also a case of tort dispute. The breach of tort also
induced a subsequent breach of contract (Ramberg 2016).

2CONSTRUCTION LAW
Codelfa Construction v State Rail Authority of New South Wales dealt
with the case of implied terms and frustration (Burett 2017). In this case the
plaintiff, that is, Codelfa was working for the State Rail Authority and this
case applied the parole evidence rule to understand the ambiguity
surrounding a case (Davies 2016). The same parole evidence rule was
applied in the case of Pagnan SpA v Feed Products Ltd [1987] 2 (Yeen 2015).
These cases discussed the importance of offer and explained when an offer
constitutes a valid contract (Turner 2016). The terms of the contract need to
be unambiguous and should explain the rights of the parties (Scollo et al
2015). There can be an admittance of an extrinsic contract if there is an
ambiguity which needs to be solved (Hunt 2015). The external circumstances
should be important to understand the implications of the terms of the
contract. Section 18 of the Australian Consumer Law states that no one shall
engage in any descriptive or misleading conduct while conducting a trade
(Paterson and Brody 2016). In this case, there has been confusion between
both the parties regarding the terms of the contract. Acciona has claimed
that the State has indulged in unfair and descriptive terms thereby
misleading Acciona into believe in terms of the contract that were against
the principles of the Australian Consumer Law. The case in the present
scenario is regarding the building of a 12 kilometer light rail line that was
agreed between the parties but the terms of the contract have been
deceptive which go against the said principles of the Australian Consumer
Law.

3CONSTRUCTION LAW
Answer 2
It is important to understand contractual obligations in the light of
good faith obligations. Good faith obligations are an important basis for
modern contract law. In the context of commercial contracts, it is important
to understand the implications of the contract as a good faith obligation
(Macaulay 2018). The notions also suggests that the obligations of the
parties need to be voluntary assumed by the parties themselves and that
needs to do be done more in cases of sophisticated commercial contracts
(Adriaanse 2016). The best to understand the good faith obligations is to
attach express contractual terms so that the parties can assume their
responsibilities better. This notion was upheld in the case of Commercial
Bank of Australia v Amadio [1983] HCA 14. Again in the case of BP Refinery
(Westernport) Pty Ltd v Shire of Hastings the Court of Appeals held that the
doctrine of good faith should be seen as an implication of law and the
obligation of good faith should be seen as a prerequisite of a contract in the
eye of law (Armstrong 2016). More so, the concept of good faith is seen as
an essential element in commercial contract. This case was concerned with
ad hoc implication of good faith and dealt with the law of implied terms
(Campbell 2014). This case laid down five tests that must be satisfied by the
parties to a contract and these five tests are very strict (Klee 2015). The test
for implied contractual terms is that the term has to be reasonable and
equitable, the terms should render the contract effective and the terms shall
not be such that the no meaning is attached to the contract if the implied