J & A Developments Ltd v First Named Defendant [2006] NIQB 85 (11 December 2006)

J & A Developments Ltd v First Named Defendant [2006] NIQB 85 (11 December 2006)

The defendants breached a binding tendering contract by seeking price reductions from tenderers contrary to the incorporated Code, entitling the plaintiff to damages for tender costs and loss of contract. The architects were not negligent as a competent architect could not have foreseen the legal consequences of the breach.

Citation
[2006] NIQB 85
Parties
Plaintiff: J & A Developments Ltd; First Named Defendant: Edina Manufacturing Ltd; Second Named Defendant: Armoura Ltd; Third Parties: John Francis McBride, Peter Anthony Dolan, Gerard Coyle and Barry Gallagher T/A ADP Architects and Design Partnership
Jurisdiction
Northern Ireland
Judgment Date
11 December 2006
Procedural Posture
Commercial Contract Dispute / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Plaintiff's claim succeeds; third party proceedings dismissed.
Legal Topics
Tendering Procedure, Collateral Contract, Architect's Duty of Care, Breach of Contract, Damages
Contract Law Professional Negligence Tendering Procedure Collateral Contract Architect's Duty of Care Breach of Contract 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 5 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

J & A Developments Ltd

Plaintiff

Edina Manufacturing Ltd

First Named Defendant

Armoura Ltd

Second Named Defendant

John Francis McBride, Peter Anthony Dolan, Gerard Coyle and Barry Gallagher T/A ADP Architects and Design Partnership

Third Parties

Procedural Posture

Commercial Contract Dispute / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the incorporation of the Code of Procedure for single stage selective tendering 1996 into tender documents created a binding contractual obligation
  2. 2 Whether the defendants breached the tendering contract by seeking price reductions from tenderers
  3. 3 Whether the third parties (architects) were negligent in their professional duties

Ratio Decidendi

The defendants breached a binding tendering contract by seeking price reductions from tenderers contrary to the incorporated Code, entitling the plaintiff to damages for tender costs and loss of contract. The architects were not negligent as a competent architect could not have foreseen the legal consequences of the breach.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's claim succeeds; third party proceedings dismissed.

Orders

  • Defendants to pay plaintiff damages for breach of contract, including tender preparation costs and loss of contract.
  • Third party claim for indemnity or contribution dismissed.