Coursework Construction Contract Law

Question: Discuss about the Coursework Construction Contract Law. Answer: Discussion Every transaction and contracts entered into by people in the UK has to abide by Contract Law as well as Law of Tort[1]. The report deals with the case analysis of Quashquell Construction Limited (QQ) which is a UK registered property developer based in Manchester. Its primary focus is on brownfield development which develops retails parks in various reclaimed lands in cities of UK. With the BREXIT referendum coming into being the company has declined in its business significantly. With losses in its business, the company decided to sell-off its three storey office building in Salford and move to Hull. The company new projects are located in Hull hence it is profitable for the company to relocate to that office, in an old Victorian building. Since the building was very old it needed certain refurbishment works to the tune of GBP 50000. Retro Salvagers Ltd (RSL) was responsible for carrying out all works in the said premises and complete it within 25 February 2016. This would let QQ f ulfill its contractual agreement to its buyers, the contract further stated a deduction of 4.5% from contract price with loss in each day delayed. QQ further entered into contractual agreement with Dapar Heating Systems (DHS) for purchasing and installing heating systems in the premises[2]. The contract entered into provided that DHS complete the installation prior to 25 February 2016, delay in which DHS needed to pay GBP 1200. RSL failed to deliver the promised within date due and QQ had to move into nearby hotels conference hall for its operations for ten days. This led to severe expenditures for the company and also overriding Contract Law and Tort Law[3]. Further RSL failed to install heating systems and after installation there was three weeks of malfunctioning. The heating system upon examination exploded causing injury to Sally and Sean, employees of QQ. Thus, the above scenario has been analyzed on contractual and tort-related issues. QQ, Sally, Sean and Amy have been provided justification for their legal claims that they can make from the following situation. Quashquell Construction Limited (QQ) is a reputed brand name in the UK with multiple construction and any issues that it faces in regards to its business will be a threat to its current existence[4]. The report discusses the case of QQ by applying and analyzing Contract Law and Law of Tort based on Law of UK and Scotland. The analysis has been developed using examples from multiple case studies. In order to analyze this case study Law of Contract and Law of Tort of UK has been analyzed. The bases of Contract Act are its basic elements which are required for its formation. An offer, acceptance, legality of terms, legality of object, explicit or implied are some of the basic criterias that are required for the purpose of contract formation. Law of Tort on the other hand expresses legality of objects and ensures that no harm has been caused in the course of the contract. It is applicable on a wrong doing which needs to be established. The Contract Law in the UK provides for that every person, meaning individual for businesses who has entered into a contract needs to follow its regulations regarding the same. The formation of a contract requires that all elements of the law are satisfied. When QQ entered into a contract with RSL and DHS on making subsequent offers to them[5]. The offer was accepted by the parties with all its terms and conditions, which led into the formation of the contract. Once formed the contract becomes legally enforceable and needs to be fulfilled with all intentions as the offer was made on legal terms. But RSL failed to fulfill its commitments by not delivering the premises as promised. The company had met the three basic essentials for contract creation as agreement, consideration and contractual intention. But the company failed to meet the three basic essentials that validate a contract. Every contract has certain aspects of Express terms and Implied terms which parties entering the contract set in their agreement. In this contract entered into agreement is recorded for expressing terms of the contract. It was clearly stated upon payment that it needed to be completed by 25 February 2016. As already the company had suffered losses from BREXIT it was necessary for it to meet the requirements it had specified to its customers. This would ensure better brand name and value for the company and ensured more business[6]. Even if the contract provided for deduction of amount in case the requirements did not meet. But unable to meet the deadline for the contract has caused loss to business, brand name and expenditure while staying at the hotel premises as well[7]. The Law of Tort can also be applied on the company as the company has defied meeting its promises. In the Law of Tort in the UK bodies need to apply rights, obligations and remedies for business or plaintiff who has suffered harm due to the wrongful act of RSL[8]. The Law of Tort provides that parties need to provide remedy in case of negligence caused from Duty of Care, Breach of the Duty, Causation and in case of Damage or injury. Duty of Care: In tort law, QQ can claim significant damage from RSL and it is a legal duty of the company to pay them the losses. As the obligation under this duty is enforceable it requires RSL to comply with certain standards that could prevent or reverse the effect of harm. While staying at the hotel QQ had incurred several expenditures[9]. Also as communicated by RSL the company had left its previous property o come and stay at the current location which it could not stay according to the due date promised. Breach of Duty: RSL also after entering into the contract failed to meet its obligation which resulted in Breach of Duty. Economic Tort: This is a pure case of Economic Tort as QQ has incurred loss economic loss significantly. The business with severe loss of business and failing to move into the new location has resulted in this tort. In Spartan Steel Alloys Ltd v Martin Co case there was significant economic loss for which the plaintiff claimed for losses[10]. RSL needs to provide remedial actions in economic terms that QQ can significantly claim. A damage is the loss that has occurred from the tort and needs to be catered to and compensated for. While claiming for any sort of compensation it can either be nominal, contemptuous, general, special, aggravated damages and exemplary or punitive damages[11]. The company can claim for Special Damages by providing for the suffered losses. QQ will provide documents from necessary hotel bills and other documents to claim of many significant losses. The company has entered into contract with QQ for installing the heating systems within the said deadline. The company has also agreed to pay a sum of GBP 1200 for compensating any loss in delayed completion. Hence, as both the parties have entered into the contract for the purpose they needed to abide by its terms and basic elements[12]. The heating systems also focused on efficient systems but there were no expressed provision to provide for energy efficiency. The term of the contract was implied which also needed to be followed as the company had provided assurance regarding the same. Though QQ had made necessary payments in order to get services provided by the companys heating system but it failed miserably. QQ also had to install mobile heaters for the purpose of heating while they moved into their new office. While DHS assured that its heating systems will stabilize it did not. Purely the company after agreement failed to meet the requirements of the contract leading to its fa ilure[13]. Law of Tort is applicable to this case as there has been significant amount of harm caused by installation of the heating systems. As the law provides for rights, obligations, remedies which can be applied in courts proceeding for any harm caused. The plaintiff here QQ has suffered harm due to significant wrongful act of the heating company[14]. QQ can claim for damages in civil court of law. This law of tort is applicable even of the parties to the contract does not desire so. This law is abiding on the individuals and business; and is imposed by the state. As it is applicable by the state the compensation can be claimed for remedial actions. In this case DHs can be accused of civil as well as criminal wrong doing. such wrong doings can be claimed for negligence, defamation or nuisance. In Mc Farlane v E.E. Caledonia case established that fear was reasonable cause providing for wrong doing. The case encompass a number of instances that covers economic, physical and psychiatric damag e claims made by the contracting parties[15]. DHS sales representatives had made high promises to ensure best quality of products delivered to QQ. On the expressed as well as implied terms of contract provided by DHS, QQ entered into a contract. DHS though assured installing the best heating system initially it malfunctioned. Here at this juncture itself, the company should have conducted an expert analysis on its heating systems. DHS can be further be held responsible that even after weeks of malfunctioning of its heating systems it failed to accommodate an experts opinion to assure QQ as promised. QQ on questioning the issues with the heating system was further assured by DHS as it will stabilize after a while. It was QQ who conducted an expert analysis post it analyzed some anomaly in the system. QQ was hesitant regarding the newly installed systems malfunctioning and hence wanted an investigation into the same. DHs holds legal responsibility for every system it installs and prov ides to its customers. Tortuous liability provides to give compensation, indemnity or restitution for harm caused. In this case QQ along with its employees has suffered unwanted harm due to physical injury, financial loss, reputation and damage of property. In case of Duliev v White Sons Kennedy J. proved that shock arising from is reasonable fear that has been caused due to busting of heating systems in QQ[16]. This is reason enough for claiming tort. Cattles v Stockton Waterworks Co case also provided for various economic losses that can arise from Law of Tort[17]. Similarly, in this case the plaintiffs have established that any claims regarding tort needs to be settled. In order to heat the office at the said premises QQ had to hire four mobile heaters at GBP 100 each day which caused significant economic loss to the company. Inspite of the knowledge of DHS that the building was old, cold and damp them did not fit the new systems in the building[18]. The newly installed heating system further malfunctioned; three weeks post its installation. Though DHS assured that they provided the best quality heating systems they malfunctioned[19]. DHS system further assured that their heating system will stabilize after installation. In this DHS has tort of negligence which has caused harm to multiple individuals. QQ had appointed an independent expert for evaluating the heating systems installed such that assessment could be done[20]. The independent expert upon examining the system it exploded causing harm to Sally, Sean and Amy who were employees at QQ. There was also injury from slippery stairs resulting in dislocated ankle. Experts stated that this was a fault with the installation of DHS. DHS has installed a low end energy efficiency heating system and explosion was due to gas leak from the system[21]. DHS sales representative had stated that the heating systems installed by them is one of the best available in the market. He also assured verbal regarding the energy efficiency of such systems, further he impressed the employees of QQ stating that they will recover the installation costs within two years of installation. Such verbal statement of the sales representative is an implied contract and can be used in the civil court of law to challenge the company. In Contract law terms and arrangements can be either verbal or non-verbal and it can be included while forming a viable case against the company. QQ on this stated terms had agreed to install DHS heating systems compared to other available in the market, hence DHS bears considerable responsibility regarding the same. Though the energy efficiency was not a part of the contract yet it had been verbally stated hence can be accounted as implied in nature. In this case DHS systems have avoided its Duty of Care and owe legal duty to the victims of the incidence. The defendant has obligation of duty which is legally enforceable and has avoided standards of working. The company has also had, Breach of Duty which it had from its basic business principles. The company has legal liability to install systems that do not cause potential harm or damage to any individual either physical or psychiatric in nature. It caused emotional distress and monetary loss of the company as well as its employees due to negligence[22]. The report conducted by QQ in regards to it heating systems by independent experts should be further be admissible in the court of law. DHS had its engineers and experts occupied in certain other contracts and in order to meet the deadline this contract with QQ had been done in a pressurized manner. It can be argued that they did not use their best engineers to install the systems and did not appoint any expert to check the system. It is not the responsibility of QQ to appoint independent experts in order to check for validity and stability of systems. In case QQ had not conducted an independent search regarding the matter it could have resulted in much higher disaster. Explosion of the sort that was experienced could have easily be avoided and harm could be circumvented in case DHS would had conducted a check on the systems. The gas leak which was diagnosed by expert prior to the explosion should have been told to the QQ employees such that they would have been more careful. The exp erts delay in report can also be attributed significant responsibility as his creating awareness regarding the system problems could have helped avoid accidents. The company can be filed for Tort of Negligence as it has succumbed to its Duty of Care, Breach and caused damage or injury to its victims. The plaintiff can claim for such damages from DHS and prove them to be special damages[23]. Though QQ cannot claim costs for additional heaters from DHS in case of any legal developments (LD) amongst the parties. In this case DHS needs to cover for any delay in claims or installation in the heating systems of the company. QQ can claim for the explosion that has been caused due to improper installation of heating systems. Such claims for damages can be done under Law of Torts itself that provides for settling harm or accidents in case of a contract law. Amy, Sally and Sean had been a part of the accident that took place and without their faults they succumbed to injuries. With the explosion of the heating system they being present in the room, had been injured and they can claim significant damages from QQ. QQ holds responsibility for the health and wellness of its employees and is also responsible for any accidents or harm occurring in the workplace due to accidents or whatsoever. It is the legal responsibility of employers for protection of health and wellness of employees. Hence in case the employees makes claim against QQ, it has to pay to them. Claims made by Amy, Sally and Sean for any losses from bursting of the heating system could not be claimed from DHS. QQ holds the responsibility for health and all accidents caused to its employees within the premises of employment. It is the responsibility of QQ to ensure that its employees do not receive any harm for the acts or doings within the premises of the company. The way in whi ch QQ will settle the claims made to its employees is a matter for QQ and it can do so from DHS with legitimate reasons. However, such claims cannot be directly impended upon to DHS by QQ. QQ can make a claim adding all relevant costs it deems significant and then provide it in the courts of law. An alternative argument to the said cases can be provided that QQ while shifting its office premises needed to verify all details pertaining to the businesses which it employs[24]. In regards to RSL the loss incurred by the company was significantly low and was economic in nature. In case QQ had formed the contract with all relevant clause and aspects covered then it probably would not have had incurred any issues. Further in case of DHS upon its delay and findings improper installation QQ had cancelled its contract then probably significant low losses to the company would have occurred. Another argument is that DHS and RSL tried their best and provided best services but due to certain errors in systems and human delay they work was delayed. Hence, QQ needed to provide them buffer time for covering of such aspects and need not claim any amount for such losses[25]. Analysis of the case for QQ and its subsequent contracting companies has highlighted inability to meet the terms of the contract. Both the companies have also violated terms of Law of Tort by harming QQ in terms of economic loss and physical as well as psychiatric damage. QQ can claim such damages in civil courts, which in turn can establish the damages cause by the companies and economic losses incurred. The plaintiff has all rights related to contractual and tort-related issues that have been suffered in the case. Also due to physical damages caused to QQ, Sean and Amy hence they have legal claim towards DHS for their losses. Apart from financial and economic loss, the plaintiff has also suffered high amount of physical and psychiatric damage which needs to be indemnified. Thus, alternative argument for the above cases holds that QQ should have verified each company details and then entered into contract terms with all details clearly and explicitly lay down. It can be argued that QQ entered the contract and abided by its terms by paying the sum on good faith without questionable arguments. QQ has suffered tremendous losses due to appointment of RSL as well as DHS for its various requirements. Especially DHS has harmed QQ expressively by ignoring its responsibility and not adhering to legal standards. It had also clearly specified its requisites the liability lays solely on the firms it had entered into for formation of the contract which failed to meet its standards. Thus, the contracting parties can be held legally responsible and binding for the terms of the contract as well as law of torts. Bibliography Book Chen-Wishart, Mindy.Contract law. Oxford University Press, 2012. Cooke, John.Law of tort. Pearson Education, 2007. Deakin, Simon F., Angus Johnston, and Basil S. Markesinis.Markesinis and Deakin's tort law. Oxford University Press, 2012. Fried, Charles.Contract as promise: A theory of contractual obligation. Oxford University Press, USA, 2015. McKendrick, Ewan.Contract law: text, cases, and materials. Oxford University Press (UK), 2014. Polinsky, A. Mitchell, and Steven Shavell, eds.Handbook of law and economics. Elsevier, 2007. Veljanovski, Cento G.Economic principles of law. Cambridge University Press, 2007. Journals Beale, Hugh, Denis Tallon, Stefan Vogenauer, Jacobien W. Rutgers, and Bndicte Fauvarque-Cosson.Cases, materials and text on contract law. Hart, 2010. Elliott, Catherine, and Frances Quinn.Contract law. Pearson Education, 2007. Koffman, Laurence, and Elizabeth Macdonald.The law of contract. Oxford University Press, 2010. Friedman, Lawrence M.Contract law in America: a social and economic case study. Quid Pro Books, 2011. Koffman, Laurence, and Elizabeth Macdonald. The law of contract. Oxford University Press, 2010. Harvey, William Burnett, and Stanley D. Henderson. Contracts: Cases and Comment. Foundation Press, 2008. Li-ming, W. A. N. G. "Certain Issues in Enacting Tort Law."Contemporary Law Review5 (2008): 001. Veljanovski, Cento G. "Economic principles of law. ." Cambridge University Press, 2007. Cases Ayres, Ian.Studies in Contract Law. Foundation Press, 2012. Cartwright, John.Contract law: An introduction to the English law of contract for the civil lawyer. Bloomsbury Publishing, 2016. Dobbs, Dan B., Paul T. Hayden, and Ellen M. Bublick.Torts and compensation: Personal accountability and social responsibility for injury. West Academic, 2009. Graziano, Kadner. "Comparative Contract Law-Cases, Materials and Exercises." (2009). Henderson, James A.The torts process. Aspen Publishers, 2007. Hogg, Martin.Promises and Contract Law: comparative perspectives. Cambridge University Press, 2011. Lunney, Mark, and Ken Oliphant.Tort law: text and materials. Oxford University Press, 2008. Poole, Jill.Casebook on contract law. Oxford University Press, 2012. Samuel, Geoffrey.Contract law: cases and materials. Sweet Maxwell, 2007. Schwartz, Victor E., Kathryn Kelly, and David F. Partlett.Prosser, Wade and Schwartz's Torts: Cases and Materials. Foundation Press, 2010. Steele, Jenny.Tort Law: Text, cases, and materials. Oxford University Press, 2010.