Goodman v Zhao [2008] NSWDC 373

Goodman v Zhao [2008] NSWDC 373

The Home Building Contract dated 1 February 2000 and its incorporated documents constituted the binding agreement. The defendant breached statutory warranties and was negligent in numerous aspects of the work; the plaintiff is entitled to recover agreed damages. The cross-claim fails as it could not be established the works were outside the contract or that proper procedure for variations was followed. Liquidated damages fail as the contractual precondition (certification by architect) was not fulfilled.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 October 2008
Procedural Posture
Civil / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Judgment for the plaintiff for $157,847.30 plus interest; cross-claim dismissed; costs reserved
Legal Topics
['contract Formation' 'statutory Warranties' 'defective Building Work' 'liquidated Damages' 'quantum Meruit' 'building Contracts']
['construction Law' 'contract Law'] ['contract Formation' 'statutory Warranties' 'defective Building Work' 'liquidated Damages' 'quantum Meruit' 'building Contracts']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Civil / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['What was the applicable contract governing the construction works?' 'Were there breaches of statutory warranties or negligence in the building works?' 'Is the defendant liable for liquidated damages for delay?' 'Is the plaintiff entitled to damages for defective and incomplete work?' 'Is the defendant entitled to payment on a cross-claim or by quantum meruit?']

Ratio Decidendi

The Home Building Contract dated 1 February 2000 and its incorporated documents constituted the binding agreement. The defendant breached statutory warranties and was negligent in numerous aspects of the work; the plaintiff is entitled to recover agreed damages. The cross-claim fails as it could not be established the works were outside the contract or that proper procedure for variations was followed. Liquidated damages fail as the contractual precondition (certification by architect) was not fulfilled.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the plaintiff for $157,847.30 plus interest; cross-claim dismissed; costs reserved

Orders

  • ['Verdict for the plaintiff against the defendant for $157,847.30 plus interest to be agreed or assessed' 'Verdict for the cross-defendants on the cross-claim' 'Entry of judgments deferred pending assessment of interest' 'Costs reserved']