C & V Engineering Pty Ltd v Hamilton & Marino Builders Pty Ltd [2020] NSWCA 103

C & V Engineering Pty Ltd v Hamilton & Marino Builders Pty Ltd [2020] NSWCA 103

The respondent's email of 13 April 2015 was not an acceptance of an offer to purchase and pay for 1,000 plates and angles. In context, including that neither party knew the final quantities and the respondent had maintained it wanted prices per plate rather than hourly rates or a fixed quantity commitment, the email was a counter-offer to pay the quoted rates for plates and angles as required. That counter-offer was accepted by the appellant. The contract therefore did not require the respondent to pay for 1,000 units. The appellant's email refusing further performance unless its claim was paid was a repudiation, which the respondent accepted by directing the appellant to cease all works....

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
29 May 2020
Procedural Posture
Appeal From District Court Orders Dismissing a Construction Contract Damages Claim / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['contract Formation' 'construction of Contract' 'offer and Counter Offer' 'supply and Installation of Building Materials' 'repudiation' 'implied Terms']
['contract Law' 'construction Law'] ['contract Formation' 'construction of Contract' 'offer and Counter Offer' 'supply and Installation of Building Materials' 'repudiation' 'implied Terms']

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

Appeal From District Court Orders Dismissing a Construction Contract Damages Claim / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the contract was formed by the respondent's acceptance of the appellant's offer or by the appellant's acceptance of the respondent's counter-offer." 'Whether the contract required the respondent to purchase and pay for a fixed quantity of 1,000 plates and angles or only plates and angles as required at the quoted rates.' 'Whether there was an implied term requiring the parties to negotiate a variation of price in good faith if the number of plates and angles required changed.' "Whether the appellant's refusal to perform further work was a repudiation accepted by the respondent."]

Ratio Decidendi

The respondent's email of 13 April 2015 was not an acceptance of an offer to purchase and pay for 1,000 plates and angles. In context, including that neither party knew the final quantities and the respondent had maintained it wanted prices per plate rather than hourly rates or a fixed quantity commitment, the email was a counter-offer to pay the quoted rates for plates and angles as required. That counter-offer was accepted by the appellant. The contract therefore did not require the respondent to pay for 1,000 units. The appellant's email refusing further performance unless its claim was paid was a repudiation, which the respondent accepted by directing the appellant to cease all works....

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['Appeal dismissed with costs.']