Furmans Electrical Contractors v Elecref Ltd [2009] EWCA Civ 170 (10 March 2009)

Furmans Electrical Contractors v Elecref Ltd [2009] EWCA Civ 170 (10 March 2009)

There was no express or implied agreement as to the number of hours on which the daily rate was based. The claim should be assessed as a contract for services at a reasonable rate for the work performed. Paid invoices could not be reopened as Elecref had knowledge of the facts and made payments without mistake or misrepresentation, thereby waiving any right to recover. The correct approach was to deduct reasonable overcharges from the unpaid invoices only.

Citation
[2009] EWCA Civ 170
Parties
Respondent: Furmans Electrical Contractors; Appellant: Elecref Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
10 March 2009
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From County Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal by Furmans Electrical Contractors allowed; appeal by Elecref Ltd dismissed.
Legal Topics
Quantum Meruit, Course of Dealing, Contractual Terms, Restitution, Assessment of Reasonable Price
Contract Law Civil Procedure Quantum Meruit Course of Dealing Contractual Terms Restitution Assessment of Reasonable Price

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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Furmans Electrical Contractors

Respondent

Elecref Ltd

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From County Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there was an express or implied agreement as to the number of hours on which the daily rate was based for subcontracted electrical work
  2. 2 Whether a course of dealing established a 9-hour day as the contractual basis
  3. 3 Whether quantum meruit or reasonable sum applies in absence of express agreement

Ratio Decidendi

There was no express or implied agreement as to the number of hours on which the daily rate was based. The claim should be assessed as a contract for services at a reasonable rate for the work performed. Paid invoices could not be reopened as Elecref had knowledge of the facts and made payments without mistake or misrepresentation, thereby waiving any right to recover. The correct approach was to deduct reasonable overcharges from the unpaid invoices only.

Court Disposition

Appeal by Furmans Electrical Contractors allowed; appeal by Elecref Ltd dismissed.

Orders

  • Judgment for Furmans Electrical Contractors for the sum claimed less £3,500 deduction for overcharges on unpaid invoices.
  • No reopening of paid invoices permitted.