Memorandum and Letter of Advice for a Legal Case

Memorandum and letter of advise
Contents
MAIN BODY..................................................................................................................................1
A memorandum to supervising lawyer that briefly sets out the basis of the plaintiffs claim and
recommends a course of action of memorandum........................................................................1
2. A letter to the lawyer acting for the other party outlining the basis of the plaintiffs claim and
seeking some form of resolution drafted for approval by your supervising lawyer....................2
REFERENCES................................................................................................................................3

MAIN BODY
A memorandum to supervising lawyer that briefly sets out the basis of the plaintiffs claim
and recommends a course of action of memorandum
To: Holy Pty Ltd (Holy)
From: Norwa Builders Pty Ltd
Date: 10 March 2022
Re: Plaintiff’s claim and resolutions.
Facts of case:
The plaintiff Norwa Builders Pty Ltd (Norwa) is a construction company which is the owned
by Ms. Kia Hose and the defendant is Holy Pty Ltd (Holy) which is a company owned and
operated by its two directors Kim Dam and Harry Wee. On 2 December 2019 Kia was
approached by Harry Wee to provide a quote to complete the fit-out of commercial premises
to create a ‘Pancake Palace’ franchise restaurant. two quotes were provided by Kia on 1
February 2020. One for $212,005.60, and a further quote for $230,099.00 that included added
costs for premium finishes. On 3 February 2020 Kim Dam accepted the second quote for
works totaling $230,099.00. A contract was signed. It was agreed by the parties that the total
amount payable to Norwa by Holy upon the completion of the construction, within the
stipulated time of 42 days, would be $230,099. The payment was to be made in instalments
and that the final instalment of $96000 were to be paid on the completion of the restaurant.
The contract provided for damages of $2000 per contract day in the event of delay by Norwa1.
The construction was completed on 15th May, 2020. it was agreed by the parties that days for
the purpose of this contract would include Saturdays but not Sundays or public holidays.
When Norwa demanded the final instalment of payment, Holy refused to fulfil the same
stating the breach on the part of Norwa as it did not comply with time period set in the contract
and rather 23 demanded $94000 as damages for the breach. That the contract though specified
42 days for the completion of the construction but did not mention the start date for the same.
As well as it was implied that this time period is only applicable in the scenario where there is
1 Grundmann, S., 2021. The Future of Contract Law. European Review of Contract Law, 7(4).

no fault or delay on the part of the other party (i.e. Holy). According to Holy, the construction
start date was 17th February, 2020 which is per se false as the regulatory approval for the
building was received on 24th February, 2020. The contract only allowed Norwa to comply
with the construction plan provided by Holy. When Norwa commenced the set-out on the
floor of the premises it was discovered that the plans were inaccurate and did not suit the
actual floor plan and the architect was advised of the error in the plans on Wednesday 26
February 2020. Revised plans were provided in return in the first week of March 2020 with
the final amended plans provided to Norwa on Monday 09 March 2020 at 6.57 PM. The
calculation of damages by Holy is inaccurate and taking into consideration the above facts
Norwa should only be liable for the delay of 13 days rather than 47 contact days.
Plaintiff’s claim:
The claims of the plaintiff includes the following-
 The plaintiff demands for the final instalment of the payment which has been refused
by the defendant.
 The plaintiff seeks to make claim for the damages against the breach of the contract as
the defendant refused to make the final installment of the payment.
 The plaintiff also demands for the cost of the suit which may have been incurred
during the proceedings of the case2.
Resolution
Taking into consideration the above facts our client should be paid $70,000 which is after the
set off of damages due to the delay on the part of Norwa. As the damages which the defendant
is seeking is based on false rationale hence harassing our client. In order to make resolution of
this case, the parties may op[t for the arbitration in order to make formal hearing and
proceeding of the case so that speedy disposal of the case can be done and in cost effective
manner.
2 Hesselink, M., 2019. Democratic contract law. European Review of Contract Law, 11(2).