Image from Google Jackets

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
Holdings
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