Stepanoski v Aslan [2018] NSWSC 1160

Stepanoski v Aslan [2018] NSWSC 1160

The contemporaneous material, including the finance documentation requiring a fixed price contract, the home warranty insurance certificates, progress claims, drawdown requests, notices and later correspondence, showed that the parties regarded themselves as bound by the Lump Sum Contract. The evidence did not establish any oral agreement that the Cost Plus Contract would continue to bind the parties. Accordingly, from a time no later than 12 January 2015, the parties were bound by the Lump Sum Contract, with effect from 14 October 2014, and there was no basis for concluding that any contractual obligation other than those contained in the Lump Sum Contract bound them.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 July 2018
Procedural Posture
Contract Claim for Damages for Alleged Breaches of a Building Contract, With Cross Claim / Principal Judgment on the Preliminary Question of the Terms of the Building Contract Binding the Parties
Outcome
The Court concluded that the parties were bound by the Lump Sum Contract, with effect from 14 October 2014, and not by any continuing obligation under the Cost Plus Contract.
Legal Topics
['contract Formation' 'battle of the Forms' 'residential Building Contracts' 'cost Plus Contract' 'lump Sum Contract' 'oral Agreement' 'sham Allegation' 'construction Finance']
['contract Law' 'construction Law' 'equity'] ['contract Formation' 'battle of the Forms' 'residential Building Contracts' 'cost Plus Contract' 'lump Sum Contract' 'oral Agreement' 'sham Allegation' 'construction Finance']

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

Contract Claim for Damages for Alleged Breaches of a Building Contract, With Cross Claim / Principal Judgment on the Preliminary Question of the Terms of the Building Contract Binding the Parties

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the parties were bound by the Head Contract Cost Plus (Residential) signed on 14 October 2014 or by the later Home Building Contract for Work over $5,000 described as the Lump Sum Contract.' 'Whether the Lump Sum Contract was intended to replace the Cost Plus Contract, and if so from what time and with what effect.' 'Whether an oral agreement qualified the written arrangements so that the Cost Plus Contract continued to bind the parties or applied to work done before the Lump Sum Contract was signed.' "Whether the Lump Sum Contract was merely brought into existence for Macquarie Bank finance purposes and was not intended to govern the parties' rights and obligations."]

Ratio Decidendi

The contemporaneous material, including the finance documentation requiring a fixed price contract, the home warranty insurance certificates, progress claims, drawdown requests, notices and later correspondence, showed that the parties regarded themselves as bound by the Lump Sum Contract. The evidence did not establish any oral agreement that the Cost Plus Contract would continue to bind the parties. Accordingly, from a time no later than 12 January 2015, the parties were bound by the Lump Sum Contract, with effect from 14 October 2014, and there was no basis for concluding that any contractual obligation other than those contained in the Lump Sum Contract bound them.

Court Disposition

The Court concluded that the parties were bound by the Lump Sum Contract, with effect from 14 October 2014, and not by any continuing obligation under the Cost Plus Contract.

Orders

  • []