A Lichfield law firm is celebrating after winning two separate construction industry disputes.
In the first case, Traditional Structures Ltd v HW Construction Ltd, Ansons Solicitors represented the claimant Traditional Structures who provided a quote to supply steelwork and roof cladding to the main contractor (HW Construction) relating to the construction of a business development centre at the Birmingham Metropolitan College in Sutton Coldfield.
Traditional Structures faxed and later posted the quote, but the roof cladding element of the quote was omitted from the bottom of the fax page. However, the copy retained by Traditional Structures had two prices – one for steelwork and one for roof cladding. HW Construction accepted the quote on the basis of the price in the faxed copy.
Later, as work commenced, variations led to Traditional Structures sending an updated quote with two figures for ‘steelwork’ and ‘roof cladding’. HW Construction refused to pay for the roof cladding element.
Martin de Ridder, associate solicitor and head of dispute resolution, said:
“The Judge found that Traditional Structures’ mistake was obvious and HW Construction should have been aware of the error and queried it with them.
“The Court ruled in favour of Traditional Structures allowing them to claim against HW Construction for the rectification of the quote on the grounds of a unilateral mistake and for a reasonable price for the work which it had carried out.”
The second case involved a sole trader builder, Mr Rochester, who had started the construction of a house extension for Mr and Mrs Athwal. While carrying out the building work, Mr Rochester suffered a heart attack and as a result was unable to complete the job. Mr and Mrs Athwal issued a claim against Mr Rochester for breach of contract for failing to complete the building work.
Ansons Solicitors represented Mr Rochester. Mr Ridder said:
“The Judge ruled that Mr Rochester was not in breach of contract because the contract was frustrated when Mr Rochester had his heart attack, thereby bringing any further contractual obligations to an end. The Judge found that the contract was for personal services as Mr Rochester was a sole trader and ordered Mr and Mrs Athwal to pay Mr Rochester for the services he had provided.
“Mr Rochester was keen to resolve the dispute from the beginning, but due to the other party failing to settle the dispute early the case proceeded to trial. He will now receive payment for all the work he had done and he will recover all costs associated with the court case.”
