Construction Law Conflicts (Coursework Sample)

Construction Law
by Student’s Name
Course code+name
Professor’s name
University name
City, State
Date of submission
a) Does Central City have a legitimate claim that it had performed substantially?
Parties under a contract are deemed to have agreed to be bound by the terms of the contract. If the parties do not agree to vary the terms, one party cannot purport to change the terms they cannot fulfill their obligations under the contract (Mitchell, 2014). A construction contract that specifies the period within which the construction must be completed must be complied with by the contractor. In default of completion within time, the contractor will be held liable for breach of contract, as held in GLC vs. Cleveland Bridge and Engineering (1984). In such a case, time is of the essence and constitutes a fundamental term of the contract. Thus, a breach of this term constitutes a breach of condition (United Scientific Holdings vs. Burnley Council, 1978).
Besides, where a contract requires the entire obligation's performance, a party who does not perform the entire contract cannot claim any payment. (Cutter v Powell (1756). However, the law has since developed exceptions to the fundamental performance rule such that where the contract is not one which requires entire performance, substantive performance can be considered. In such a case, a party who has executed part of the contract is entitled to claim payment of the same proportion of their performance. This is referred to as quantum meruit. As held in the case of Monk Construction Ltd vs. Norwich Union Life Assurance Society [1992], if there is no agreed scale of payment, assessment of the payment due to the contractor will be made based on quantum meruit. This was also the position of the court in the case of Hoenig v Isaacs [1952]. Additionally, a party is allowed to claim the prize of what has been performed less than needed for expenses such as repairs, as was the case in Boone v Eyre (1779). Accordingly, Central City can claim payment for substantial performance less than would reasonably be needed to execute any repairs on the portion already constructed.
b) Can Central City claim that it was prevented from completing the project because of the impossibility of performance?
A party can claim the impossibility of performance in case of a frustrating event that occurs after the parties have agreed to the terms of the contract. In the case of Nickoll and Knight v Ashton, Eldridge & Co [1901], the court held that it was impossible to perform the contract since the performance method was no longer available. However, the courts usually impute frustration only as a last resort, considering that a contract is terminated once the frustrating event occurs. Therefore, a party cannot claim frustration where performance is merely difficult, but not impossible to perform, as was held in Tsakiroglou Co Ltd v Noble Thorl GmbH (1962). In the present case, there was a shortage of construction materials. There is no indication that the materials were u