ERDC Group Ltd. v Brunel University [2006] EWHC 687 (TCC) (29 March 2006)

ERDC Group Ltd. v Brunel University [2006] EWHC 687 (TCC) (29 March 2006)

The letters of intent constituted binding contracts for works prior to 1 September 2002, with valuation to be carried out according to the JCT Valuation Rules and ERDC's tender rates. For works after 1 September 2002, quantum meruit applies, but assessment should reference ERDC's tender rates and prices, not actual costs, ensuring ERDC is not better off than if a contract had been concluded. Delay and disruption costs are recoverable only if not caused by ERDC, and valuation must be fair and reasonable, referencing market rates and tender comparables.

Citation
[2006] EWHC 687 (TCC)
Parties
Claimant/part 20 Defendant: ERDC Group Limited; Defendant/part 20 Claimant: Brunel University
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
29 March 2006
Procedural Posture
Construction Contract Dispute / Judgment
Outcome
Claim and counterclaim determined; ERDC entitled to payment for works valued as per judgment; quantum meruit applies post-1 September 2002, referencing tender rates.
Legal Topics
Letters of Intent, Quantum Meruit, Valuation of Works, Delay and Disruption, Contract Formation
Construction Law Contract Law Letters of Intent Quantum Meruit Valuation of Works Delay and Disruption Contract Formation

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 5 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

ERDC Group Limited

Claimant/part 20 Defendant

Brunel University

Defendant/part 20 Claimant

Procedural Posture

Construction Contract Dispute / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether letters of intent constituted binding contracts
  2. 2 Basis for valuation of works prior to and after 1 September 2002
  3. 3 Entitlement to delay and disruption costs

Ratio Decidendi

The letters of intent constituted binding contracts for works prior to 1 September 2002, with valuation to be carried out according to the JCT Valuation Rules and ERDC's tender rates. For works after 1 September 2002, quantum meruit applies, but assessment should reference ERDC's tender rates and prices, not actual costs, ensuring ERDC is not better off than if a contract had been concluded. Delay and disruption costs are recoverable only if not caused by ERDC, and valuation must be fair and reasonable, referencing market rates and tender comparables.

Court Disposition

Claim and counterclaim determined; ERDC entitled to payment for works valued as per judgment; quantum meruit applies post-1 September 2002, referencing tender rates.

Orders

  • Works prior to 1 September 2002 to be valued according to JCT Valuation Rules and ERDC's tender rates.
  • Works after 1 September 2002 to be valued on quantum meruit, referencing tender rates and prices.