HEADWIN ENGINEERING LTD v. UNITED SOUNDFAIR ENGINEERING CO LTD

HEADWIN ENGINEERING LTD v. UNITED SOUNDFAIR ENGINEERING CO LTD

The Signed R4 Quotation constituted the contract; its express Condition made the sub-contract a fixed price lump sum contract not subject to re-measurement; the Priced BQ and addenda to the employer's sub-contract did not alter that contract; plaintiff was entitled to the unpaid balance (net) of the lump sum and to...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
HEADWIN ENGINEERING LTD v. UNITED SOUNDFAIR ENGINEERING CO LTD
Parties
Plaintiff: Plaintiff; Defendant: Defendant
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
9 April 2008
Case Number
DCCJ5034/2006
Procedural Posture
Construction Contract Dispute (claimed Payment and Counterclaim) / District Court Judgment (trial Concluded)
Outcome
Judgment for the Plaintiff for HK$564,500.00 (outstanding contract balance and variation cost). Defendant's counterclaim dismissed. Costs awarded to Plaintiff (costs nisi to be taxed if not agreed).
Legal Topics
Lump Sum Contract, Variation of Contract, Warranty Obligations, Bill of Quantities, Contract Interpretation, Remedial Works, Re Measurement and Valuation
Source Language
en
Contract Law Construction Law Commercial Litigation Lump Sum Contract Variation of Contract Warranty Obligations Bill of Quantities Contract Interpretation +2 more

Source-derived case record

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Plaintiff

Plaintiff

Defendant

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Construction Contract Dispute (claimed Payment and Counterclaim) / District Court Judgment (trial Concluded)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the contract between the parties was the Signed R4 Quotation or comprised the Four Documents
  2. 2 Whether the Priced Bill of Quantities and/or the Particular Specifications formed part of the contract
  3. 3 Whether the Steelworks were on fixed price lump sum basis or on a discount/with-quantities re-measurement basis

Ratio Decidendi

The Signed R4 Quotation constituted the contract; its express Condition made the sub-contract a fixed price lump sum contract not subject to re-measurement; the Priced BQ and addenda to the employer's sub-contract did not alter that contract; plaintiff was entitled to the unpaid balance (net) of the lump sum and to payment for variation works; defendant's counterclaim failed.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the Plaintiff for HK$564,500.00 (outstanding contract balance and variation cost). Defendant's counterclaim dismissed. Costs awarded to Plaintiff (costs nisi to be taxed if not agreed).

Orders

  • Defendant to pay Plaintiff HK$564,500.00
  • Defendant to pay Plaintiff costs of the action (including costs of the counterclaim and reserved costs if any) to be taxed if not agreed