Yoram Amsalem (t/a MRE Building Contractors) v Raivid & Anor

Yoram Amsalem (t/a MRE Building Contractors) v Raivid & Anor

No fixed lump sum or capped contract was agreed; the parties intended a reasonable price for the works and agreed variations. The claimant is entitled to a reasonable sum for the works and extras. There was no economic duress. The defendants repudiated the contract by denying access and refusing further payment. The value of the works, less payments made and reasonable deductions for defects, results in a net sum due to the claimant.

Parties
Claimant: Yoram Amsalem (trading as MRE Building Contractors); Defendant: Hugh Mark Raivid; Defendant: Marsha Raivid
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
09 December 2008
Procedural Posture
Civil (construction Dispute) / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Judgment for the claimant
Legal Topics
Quantum Meruit, Repudiation of Contract, Economic Duress, Variation of Contract, Delay in Construction, Assessment of Damages
Contract Law Construction Law Quantum Meruit Repudiation of Contract Economic Duress Variation of Contract Delay in Construction Assessment of Damages

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

Parties

Yoram Amsalem (trading as MRE Building Contractors)

Claimant

Hugh Mark Raivid

Defendant

Marsha Raivid

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (construction Dispute) / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Was there a lump sum contract or a capped contract for the works?
  2. 2 Were there agreed variations and what was their pricing basis?
  3. 3 Was economic duress present regarding the purchase of fittings and materials?

Ratio Decidendi

No fixed lump sum or capped contract was agreed; the parties intended a reasonable price for the works and agreed variations. The claimant is entitled to a reasonable sum for the works and extras. There was no economic duress. The defendants repudiated the contract by denying access and refusing further payment. The value of the works, less payments made and reasonable deductions for defects, results in a net sum due to the claimant.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the claimant

Orders

  • Defendants to pay the claimant £193,679.54 plus VAT as assessed.
  • Counterclaim dismissed except for limited set-off for defects as allowed in the judgment.