EQ Projects Ltd v Alavi (t/a Merc London)

EQ Projects Ltd v Alavi (t/a Merc London)

The contract was formed by the claimant's offer letter of 25th July 2003 and the defendant's acceptance by conduct. The contract price was £236,119, but this included an unjustified uplift of £23,619, which was not disclosed to the defendant and was not due once the claimant became main contractor. There was no fraudulent misrepresentation but a breach of contract regarding the price breakdown, entitling the defendant to a deduction. The claims for additional works failed as there was no agreement or acquiescence by the defendant, nor factual or legal basis for the sums claimed. The claimant was liable for certain defects but not for the air extraction system replacement or paintwork. No...

Parties
Claimant: EQ Projects Ltd (T/A Merc London); Defendant: Javid Alavi
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 December 2005
Procedural Posture
Civil (building/construction Dispute) / Judgment After Full Trial
Outcome
Judgment for the claimant in the net sum after deductions for breach of contract and counterclaim for defects.
Legal Topics
Breach of Contract, Misrepresentation, Quantum Meruit, Building Contracts, Defective Works, Damages
Contract Law Construction Law Breach of Contract Misrepresentation Quantum Meruit Building Contracts Defective Works 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 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

EQ Projects Ltd (T/A Merc London)

Claimant

Javid Alavi

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (building/construction Dispute) / Judgment After Full Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Was there a binding contract and what were its terms?
  2. 2 Was there fraudulent or negligent misrepresentation regarding the contract price?
  3. 3 Was the defendant liable for additional works claimed by the claimant?

Ratio Decidendi

The contract was formed by the claimant's offer letter of 25th July 2003 and the defendant's acceptance by conduct. The contract price was £236,119, but this included an unjustified uplift of £23,619, which was not disclosed to the defendant and was not due once the claimant became main contractor. There was no fraudulent misrepresentation but a breach of contract regarding the price breakdown, entitling the defendant to a deduction. The claims for additional works failed as there was no agreement or acquiescence by the defendant, nor factual or legal basis for the sums claimed. The claimant was liable for certain defects but not for the air extraction system replacement or paintwork. No...

Court Disposition

Judgment for the claimant in the net sum after deductions for breach of contract and counterclaim for defects.

Orders

  • Defendant to pay claimant £37,781.71 plus interest.
  • Claim for additional works dismissed.