Pre-negotiation Presentation: South Han Breakfast Point vs Lewence

This presentation analyzes a property dispute between South Han Breakfast Point Pty Ltd and Lewence Construction Ltd. The case involves a construction agreement for a commercial apartment in North Parramatta, focusing on a breach of contract due to payment issues. The presentation examines the dispute context with site plans and contract documentation, financial details including the contract sum and disputed payments, and the emotional impact on the plaintiff. It also outlines the ideal settlement before negotiations, including compensation and timing. The analysis highlights the importance of contract clauses, the Security of Payment Act, and the judge's role in the final decision, emphasizing the consequences of breaching contract terms and the shift from an active to a passive contract.

Presentation 1 (Pre-negotiation)
Assessment Schedule
Presenting Group .……………………………………………………
Assessor ..………………………
Each person must provide individual assessment of each presenting group. In turn, you will be assessed for the
quality of your comments [out of 4 marks]. Your comments must reflect the mark that you have allotted in each
category. You will be marked down if your comments do not correspond to the mark in each category. You can stay
as long as you like after your cell’s presentations to complete your comments…..try to stick to the allotted lines.
Dispute Context ……. / 4 marks
Location drawings of Project/Dispute (Site Plan, Building Plans & Elevations), Detailed drawings of Project/Dispute
(Disputed works, etc.), Contract/Dispute documentation (Specification of disputed works, Works subject to progress
payments, Council notices, etc.)
Figure 1 Site plan of apartment

Figure 2 Elevation of apartment
Figure 3 Studio apartment
This assignment explains the property dispute about two entities named as south
Han Breakfast Point Pty Ltd and Lewence construction Ltd Company that enter into a
construction agreement. The issues arise among both the party when one party fails to pay to
another party in a contract. Due to default in the payment, the contract gets breached by one
party which, in turn, repudiates the entire contract. Commercial apartment to be constructing
by the parties involved in an agreement located in the North paramatta.
Aim of this mutual agreement among the party is to build lavish apartment in the
famous area of North Parramatta that is high street (Bell, 2017). This street is famous for
hotels stay that is the reason south Han bed and breakfast company enter into a contract with
this construction company for building new apartment to steal the attention of all its users
towards this particular place.
To maintain the transparency and the discipline in its contract, the parties mutually
crafted clause by enclosing their concerns in an agreement. Apart from preparing several

clauses to this contract, the lewence constructions company substantially breached the
clause 39 of this contract to repudiate the whole contract. This case will point out towards the
building and construction industry and security of payment act 199 which guides its users to
act rationally accordingly. This act will guide its users in taking true and fair decision in this
particular case. The opportunity of being heard is given to both the parties to the contract and
finally, the judge will take decision for this case.
Financial Details ……. / 4 marks
Contract Sum/Value of Disputed property, Disputed money (Progress payments, Costs from Delays, Damages)
Comments
In analysing this contract, it is essential to draw a light on the monetary consideration
of this contract. The contract sum value for this building is $10, 00,000 which is mutually
decided by the parties after considering all the criteria’s. This consists of costs such as of raw
materials required in building the apartment by also including the profit margin or all others
costs involved in the construction.
Mutual payment policy decides by the south Han Breakfast Company and
the lewence construction pty ltd company that 10% payment is released by the party after
completion of the work in every two months. The lewence construction pty ltd company given
a timeline of building completion to the client that this apartment will get completed in 1 year
and six months that means payment will be released by the client according to this timeline
(Coggins and Bell, 2015).
Additional terms of this payment policy includes different time period such as 30%
initially for starting the construction that is $300,000 and then $100,000 for every two months
of the work completed. The payment claim by the construction company before two months
by saying that if the client will not pay then they will delay the construction work which will
further results into delaying costs of $100,000. South Han breakfast denied to pay the money
before two months and also did not pay the delaying costs due to which the whole contract
get repudiate due to the potential breaching of terms and the conditions by
the lewence construction company.
Emotional Impact ……. / 4 marks
Cause of emotional impact (Disrepect, Injustice, Embarrassment), Severity of emotional impact, Impact on health,
Impact on family.
Comments
Emotional concern of the plaintiff is considered in this assignment as how south Han
Breakfast Company gets affected due to the sudden repudiation of the contract. The victim off
the contract got mentally affected when the Lewence Construction Company demands
payment before the stipulated time.
The client intends to get the possession of the apartment after 1 year and six months
and they also paid half of the money to the company. The image of the South Han breakfast
ltd company got affected with this tragedy as they have taken money from all the buyers by

selling those flats in this apartment block which was cancelled before its completion (Ye,
2016).
Loosing goodwill of the company mentally and physically affects the plaintiff got
damaged as they have to visit the courts for appealing for getting justice from the court. South
Han did not get justice from the primary court of paramatta as they again appeal to the high
court for getting justice and finally the company get the justice as the verdict will come in the
favour of South Han by disregarding the false claims of payments of lewence construction.
Ideal Settlement (before negotiations) ……. / 4 marks
Compensation/Payment for services, Timing of settlement
Comments
South Han breakfast pty Ltd Company and the Lewence construction Pty Ltd
Company visit the primary court and then the high court for explaining their case. The clauses
mention in the agreement mutually decided by the parties says that the agreement expressly
described the progressive payment to be released by the client. This contract also states that
the construction company will get the payment from the party to contract when the contract is
active and not passive.
The primary judge cannot take the final decision of this case due to a lack of evidence to
prove the reliability and authenticity of the case. That is the reason; the South Han breakfast
company challenged in another court that is the high court to get the justice and finally they
got the justice from the higher court (Yuile, 2017). The judge in the high court analyses all the
evidences and give the verdict that after the termination of the contract
the Lewence construction is not entitled to get the progressive payments of the construction
agreement. This term is expressively mentioned in the agreement that a client will get all the
progressive payment only when a contract is active and not in the case of passive contract.
But after the breaching of terms and the conditions of the contract, South Han has the power
to terminate the agreement so this contract has changed from active to a passive contract
which is enough to change all the expressly terms of this agreement (Moorhouse, 2017).
Sub-Total …………/ 16 marks
SEE BEHIND FOR LECTURER’S MARKING CRITERIA (ie. final 4 marks)
Assessment Criteria for Comments (out of 4)
2.0 Comments on each category
2.5 Expansive comments on each category
3.0 Critical comments on each category
4.0 Expansive critical comments on each category
Penalty: 1 mark off, if comments do not correspond with mark.