Civil Law Assignment: Remedies and Contractual Dispute Analysis Report

This civil law assignment analyzes a contractual dispute arising from a construction project. The Rollow Group agreed to build an extension for Mr. Chen, with the contract specifying payment for materials and labor. Due to fluctuating material costs and labor increases, the agreement's terms became contentious. The assignment explores the formation of the contract, considering offer, acceptance, and consideration. It addresses the uncertainty in the initial agreement regarding the final cost, and the subsequent breach of contract by Mr. Chen due to his refusal to pay the increased labor costs. The core of the analysis focuses on the application of the doctrine of quantum meruit, examining whether the Rollow Group is entitled to be compensated for the work performed, even if the contract terms were not fully met. The assignment references several legal cases, including Truth About Motorways v Macquarie, TOMLINSON v RAMSEY FOOD PROCESSING PTY LTD, and Gibbs & McAllion Lloyd Pty Ltd v Kinna, to support the arguments. It also discusses the impact of the Home Building Act 1989 on the case. The analysis concludes that the plaintiff should be entitled to the money due for the work done.

Running head: CIVIL LAW
CIVIL LAW
Name of the Student:
Name of the University:
Author Note:

1CIVIL LAW
Draft of Pleadings
1. At all the material times the plaintiff was the Rollow Group who was assigned to build an
extension of the house of the defendant Mr. Chen. Mr. Chen offered him with the proposal to
build the house. It was a valid order as per.
2. That the plaintiff accepted the offer of Mr Chen and he entered into an agreement with the
defendant before starting the work. The acceptance was complete. Thus both offer and
acceptance which are the essential conditions of a valid contract are available in this contract.
3. That as per the agreement, the defendant would have to pay the plaintiff ‘the purchase price of
the materials as on the date of the completion of the work together with 160,000 $ for labor cost
and other minor charges. Thus as per the ingredients of the contract, the consideration is also
present.
4. That both the parties have agreed that the work has to be completed by the end of August of
2020.
5. That the parties have used a standard HIA residential building contract for the contract valued
at 160000 $ plus the material costs and other minor costs1. By this HIA contract, contracts are
specifically made for the residential construction industry to consider the risks and liabilities of
home building.
6. That a valid contract is formed between the parties as per the common law of contract as all
the elements of the contract are present. Hence both the parties are bound by the terms of the
contract.
1 Cott, P. (2016). Do you need a written'project'contract?. Building Connection, (Winter 2016), 34.

2CIVIL LAW
7. That the plaintiff had already mentioned that it was unsure of the exact value of the
consideration as the price of the building materials is increasing weekly and the laws about the
residential buildings was also changing with the legislation.
8. That before the work actually began; there was an unexpected increase in the labor costs and
equally unexpected drop of price of the building materials.
9. That the plaintiff had informed the other party that he is required to increase the labor
component cost to 210,000 $. Mr. Chen has agreed to such proposal of the plaintiff.
10. That the plaintiff had built the extension which was the main task assigned to him. However,
the task was not completed entirely as some minor work is left.
11. That though the extension was built within the time, Mr. Chen is refusing the payment to
Rollow Group more than the price of the materials plus 6000$ for labour.
12. That the defendant has breached the conditions of the contract by not paying the
consideration.
13. In addition to this, Mr. Chen is demanding money from the plaintiff for the amount of money
spent on hotel and travel for his relatives.
14. That the plaintiff has performed the main task of creating the extension within the stipulated
time but he could not complete it before September 2020.
15. That the plaintiff must be entitled to quantum meruit, that he must be paid for the work he
has performed.

3CIVIL LAW
16. That as per common law, the term Quantum meruit means ‘as much as he derserved’2. Here
the actual value of the service is said. It is seen in the case Truth About Motorways v Macquarie
(2000) 200 CLR 591.3
17. That the quantum meruit doctrine is applied when there lies no contract or when there I
uncertainty or doubt regarding the amount due for the work performed but done in situation not
as per the conditions of the contract.
18. That in the famous case of TOMLINSON v RAMSEY FOOD PROCESSING PTY LTD.
[2015] HCA 284, the court decided that action can be made on the basis of quantum meruit to
recover remuneration proportionate to the work done.
19. That the court held that in order to claim for quantum meruit, the claimant must prove certain
conditions. That the claimant has performed a part of the service assigned to it, that he was aware
that the provider was expected to be compensated and that the latter was unjustly enriched
himself.
20. That in this regard, the plaintiff has fulfilled all the criteria. That he had performed the task
assigned to him partly within time, that he was expected to be compensated by the other party for
the work done by him.
21. That the doctrine of quantum meruit was invoked mainly in the construction cases. In the
case of Sabemo Pty Ltd v. North Sydney Municipal Council, (1977) 2 NSWLR 8805, the claim
of quantum meruit was successfully achieved.
2 Hafeez-Baig, M. J., & English, J. (2017). Litigation: Quantum meruit claims. Proctor, The, 37(11), 10.
3 Truth About Motorways v Macquarie (2000) 200 CLR 591
4 TOMLINSON v RAMSEY FOOD PROCESSING PTY LTD. [2015] HCA 28
5 Sabemo Pty Ltd v. North Sydney Municipal Council, (1977) 2 NSWLR 880.

4CIVIL LAW
22. That in another case of Gibbs & McAllion Lloyd Pty Ltd v Kinna - [1998] VSCA 52
- Gibbs & McAllion Lloyd Pty Ltd v Kinna(30 September 1998) - [1998] VSCA 526, the basis of
claim for quantum meruit used was that the builders had given prices to do the work with the
hope that they would received the contract. The cost of pricing could be recovered under the
provisions of the future contract.
23. That another case of Renard Constructions Pty Ltd. v. Minister for Public Works,
BC92032587 at 5 needs to be discussed here. In this case there lies a contract between Renard
and the Minister of Public Works for constructing pump stations. During the course of such
construction, Renard was not performing his task up to the standard that was expected and in the
manner; the work was needed to be done. The principal supplied a Show Cause Notice to
Renard. Renard had replied to such notice by writing a letter. After few days, the principal
served notice of termination of the work with Renard. Due to this, the contractor who employed
Renard commenced action against the principal for unjustified termination of the contract. The
Court of Appeal held that the principal must act in good faith and in reasonable manner as the
contract had ad hoc terms that are implied and also termed implied by laws that the principal is
bound to give reasonable consideration to the matter that the contractor had failed to show cause.
24. That in another case of Shevill v. Builders Licensing Board [1982] HCA 47; (1982) 149
CLR 620, at pp 625 6268 it was held that the difference between a contract that has a stipulated
day for performing the act and a contract which expressly or impliedly needs the performance of
the cat to be done within a reasonable time. In the former case, the owner can rescind the
contract when the stipulated day in the contract is passed. In the latter, the right to rescind does
6 Gibbs & McAllion Lloyd Pty Ltd v Kinna - [1998] VSCA 52 - Gibbs & McAllion Lloyd Pty Ltd v Kinna(30
September 1998) - [1998] VSCA 52.
7 Renard Constructions Pty Ltd. v. Minister for Public Works, BC9203258.
8 Shevill v. Builders Licensing Board [1982] HCA 47; (1982) 149 CLR 620, at pp 625 626.

5CIVIL LAW
not generally arises when the reasonable is over, however, it can be done only when it is clearly
understood from the surrounding circumstances which had delayed the work. Delay may result in
to termination when the defaulting party shows an intention that he does not want to be bound by
the contract. From the given case, the plaintiff has no intention to discontinue or terminate the
work but rather he completes the task within reasonable time after the scheduled time is over.
Similar observation was found in Progressive Mailing House Pty.Ltd. v. Tabali Pty.Ltd. [1985]
HCA 14; (1985) 157 CLR 17, at pp 33, 409. This is per the provisions of the Home Building Act
198910.
25. Again that in the case of Progressive Mailing House Pty.Ltd. v. Tabali Pty.Ltd., at p 3211, it
was held that when the defaulting party has intention to perform his work after some reasonable
delay, the other party cannot terminate the contract. However, when it can be intended that the
defaulter has an intention of causing delay to deprive the other party from certain benefits, then
the latter can terminate the contract. These were observed as per the Home Building Act 198912.
26. That considering the facts discussed above, the Plaintiff is entitled to get the money due to
him for the amount of work done by him.
9 Progressive Mailing House Pty.Ltd. v. Tabali Pty.Ltd. [1985] HCA 14; (1985) 157 CLR 17, at pp 33, 40.
10 The Home Building Act 1989.
11 Progressive Mailing House Pty.Ltd. v. Tabali Pty.Ltd., (1985) 157 CLR 17 at p 32.
12 The Home Building Act 1989.