D.O. Ferguson and Associates v Sohl
Language: English Series: Construction Industry Law Letter ; 1993 CILL 804-806(3)Publication details: 1993Subject(s): Summary: CA 16 November 1992. The plaintiffs (F) were builders who agreed to carry out works for the defendant (S). These were set out in a priced specification and the final price including VAT was £32,194.25. Work began in March 1988 and after a number of disagreements stopped in June 1988. F left the site at the end of July at which stage the works had only been partly completed. F sued S and S counterclaimed. At the trial it was held that F had been in repudiatory breach of contract and that S was not to blame. It was also found that the value of work done was £22,065.75 whereas S had paid £26,738.75. However it was found that the cost to S of completing the contract was less than the balance due and S were therefore only awarded nominal damages of £1. S however still made a claim for repayment and the judge awarded £4,673 as money held and received by way of a restitutionary claim. F appealed on the grounds that S`s claim was soley one for common law damage and there was no valid course| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law report | London Journal article | ABS48177 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 65350-1001 |
CA 16 November 1992. The plaintiffs (F) were builders who agreed to carry out works for the defendant (S). These were set out in a priced specification and the final price including VAT was £32,194.25. Work began in March 1988 and after a number of disagreements stopped in June 1988. F left the site at the end of July at which stage the works had only been partly completed. F sued S and S counterclaimed. At the trial it was held that F had been in repudiatory breach of contract and that S was not to blame. It was also found that the value of work done was £22,065.75 whereas S had paid £26,738.75. However it was found that the cost to S of completing the contract was less than the balance due and S were therefore only awarded nominal damages of £1. S however still made a claim for repayment and the judge awarded £4,673 as money held and received by way of a restitutionary claim. F appealed on the grounds that S`s claim was soley one for common law damage and there was no valid course