What Is the Main Issue in the Case?
The main issue is to determine the proper measure of damages for a breach of a building contract when the building is defective.
The question is whether the damages should be assessed based on the difference between the value of the building as it stands and the value it would have had if erected in accordance with the plans and specifications or the cost of demolishing and re-erecting the building to conform with the plans and specifications.
What Was the Respondent’s Claim and What Was the Appellant’s Defence?
Respondent’s Claim:
1. The respondent, Mrs. Darbishire, entered into a contract with the appellant, Warrington, to build a house on her land, in accordance with certain plans and specifications.
2. After completion of the house, it was discovered that the foundations were inadequate and the house was unstable.
3. The respondent claimed that the appellant had breached the contract and sought damages for the cost of demolishing and re-erecting the building in accordance with the plans and specifications, together with certain consequential losses.
Appellant’s Defence:
4. The appellant admitted that the foundations were inadequate but denied that he was liable for the cost of demolition and re-erection of the building.
5. He contended that the respondent was only entitled to damages for the diminution in the value of the building caused by the defects and that the cost of demolition and re-erection was excessive and unreasonable.
6. He also argued that the respondent had failed to mitigate her loss by not giving him the opportunity to remedy the defects.
What Was the Respondent Entitled to in This Case?
- The respondent was entitled to have a building erected upon her land in accordance with the contract and the plans and specifications which formed part of it.
- Her damage was the loss which she had sustained by the failure of the appellant to perform his obligation to her.
- The prima facie rule for assessing damages for a breach of building contract is the difference between the contract price of the work to the contract, with the addition of profits or earnings lost by the breach, subject to consequential damages.
- The cost of the work necessary to rectify the defects complained of and so give to her the equivalent of a building on her land which is substantially in accordance with the contract was the loss the respondent had sustained.
What is the Measure of Damages for Breach of Building Contract?
- The measure of damages for a breach of a building contract is the cost of the work required to remedy the defects and give the building owner the equivalent of a building on their land that is substantially in accordance with the contract.
- The building owner’s loss can be measured only by ascertaining the amount required to rectify the defects complained of and so give to her the equivalent of a building on her land which is substantially in accordance with the contract.
- The cost of remedial work required to achieve conformity with plans and specifications, whether it be necessary to replace only a small part, a substantial part, or the whole of the building is, subject to the qualification of reasonableness, together with any appropriate consequential damages, the extent of the building owner’s loss.
- The work necessary to remedy defects in a building and so produce conformity with the plans and specifications may, and frequently will, require the removal or demolition of some part of the structure.
- What remedial work is both “necessary” and “reasonable” in any particular case is a question of fact. The question whether demolition and re-erection is a reasonable method of remedying defects does not arise when defective foundations seriously threaten the stability of a house and when the threat can be removed only by such a course.
Related Content: Breach of Construction Contract
Possible legal implications of the case are:
Contract Law
The case highlights the importance of the adherence to contractual obligations and plans/specifications, and the potential consequences of a breach of those obligations. It also highlights the different measures of damages that may be applicable in different types of contractual relationships.
Tort Law
The case touches upon the notion of negligence, as the builder failed to deliver a house in conformity with the contract and plans/specifications, thereby causing damage to the owner.
Property Law
The case highlights the importance of proper foundation construction and its potential impact on the stability and value of a building, as well as the rights and remedies available to building owners when such issues arise.
Construction Law
The case illustrates the complexities and potential difficulties in rectifying defects in construction, and the importance of ensuring that remedial work is both necessary and reasonable. It also highlights the potential costs and risks involved in demolishing and rebuilding a building.
Professional Negligence
The case raises questions about the builder’s standard of care and duty of care to the owner, and whether the builder can be held liable for professional negligence in relation to the construction of the house.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the Bellgrove v Eldridge case established that the measure of damages for a breach of a building contract is the cost of remedial work necessary to achieve conformity with the plans and specifications. Homeowners have the right to claim damages for defective works and the cost of remedial works necessary to make the building compliant with the contract plans and specifications.
As a homeowner, it is crucial to understand your legal rights and obligations under the law and the contract, and to seek legal advice from a contracts lawyer in case of disputes with your builder.
Contact our expert construction lawyer today to protect your investment and ensure that your home is safe and livable.
