Tilley Air Conditioning Pty Limited v Traminer Pty Limited [2010] NSWDC 331

New South Wales District Court

CITATION: Tilley Air Conditioning Pty Limited v Traminer Pty Limited [2010] NSWDC 331

JUDGMENT DATE: 9 December 2010

JURISDICTION: District Court of New South Wales

JUDGMENT OF: Cogswell SC DCJ

DECISION: Judgment for the defendant for $97,483.23

CATCHWORDS: CIVIL LAW - contract - fundamental components of contract agreed upon - contract for defendant to undertake certain work for plaintiff for an agreed lump sum - 6 aspects of contract in dispute - what are the contract documents? - what are the terms of the contract? - under the terms of the contract is the plaintiff entitled to recover monies from the defendant with respect to reduction in the scope of its works? - was the executed contract a complete contract, or was the demolition a separate and divisible contract? - whether the AHW specifications formed part of the contract? - the date the contract was formed? - other issues in dispute - methodology of valuing claims - whether the defendant undertook temporary works - value of the temporary works - whether contract documents provided for ductwork - whether the ductwork was modified at the instruction of the plaintiff and by the defendant - the value of the ductwork not undertake n by the defendant - whether the experts allowed for the ductwork in their reports - if there was a divisible contract what were the terms? - who is contractually liable for the demolition? - whether there was a term that the defendant would perform demolition work up to a value of $65000 - whether the defendant breached or repudiated the contract by failing or refusing to undertake the entire demolition - quantum of damages suffered by each party relating to the demolition work - whether the defendant could succeed under a claim under the Trade Practices Act based on alleged representations - the applicable rate for the ductwork - the amount of ductwork deleted from the scope of the work - whether the defendant was unjustly enriched by receipt of payment for works omitted from the contract - whether the defendant is liable to pay additional labour costs - whether the plaintiff committed misleading and deceptive conduct - whether the defendant is entitled to damages claimed in the amended first cross claim - whether the plaintiff engaged in unconsionable conduct - credibility and the weight to be placed on the evidence of the parties and the expert reports