The Ricoh Arena in Coventry, home of Coventry City football club, was completed in August 2005. As well as the 32,000 seater stadium, the arena includes a leisure centre and gym, various hospitality areas, a hotel and a casino.
The main contractor for the design and construction of the project was Laing O’Rourke. Haden Young carried out the design and installation of the mechanical and electrical works. No sub-contract documents were ever signed by Laing and Haden and a dispute arose as to the existence of a sub-contract between them.
Haden argued that there was no contract because all essential terms were not agreed; despite that they had proceeded with the work to completion and had received interim payments by reference to the terms of a draft subcontract. Laing for their part insisted the contract had been made despite the absence of an executed contract. They contended that all the essential terms were agreed.
In the Technology and Construction Court Mr Justice Ramsey identified four main issues. The first concerned agreement upon a limit of liability to be included in collateral warranties to be provided by Haden. Laing accepted that no agreement had been reached upon the limit of liability in the warranties, but argued that such an agreement was not essential to the existence of the sub-contract. Secondly the parties disputed the limit of liability for consequential losses which could be claimed by Laing under the sub-contract. Haden contended that there had been no agreement on this essential term. Thirdly the parties disagreed on whether it was necessary for the subcontract to have been formally executed for the agreement to come into existence. Finally there was dispute over the scope of the subcontract works and whether this was properly described in the subcontract documents.
Justice Ramsey summarised the guidance given in the leading text book ‘Keating on Construction Contracts’; “It is sometimes difficult to determine whether a concluded contract has come into existence when there have been lengthy negotiations between the parties but no formal contract has ever been signed. It is suggested that a useful approach is to ask whether the following can be answered in the affirmative:
a. |
in the relevant period of negotiation, did the parties intend to contract? |
b. |
at the time when they are alleged to have contracted, had they agreed with sufficient certainty upon the terms which they then regarded as being required in order that a contract should come into existence? |
c. |
did those terms include all the terms which even though the parties did not realise it, were in fact essential to be agreed if the contract was to be legally enforceable and commercially workable? |
d. |
was there sufficient indication of acceptance by the offeree of the offer as then made complying with any stipulation in the offer itself as to the manner of acceptance?” |
Bearing this guidance in mind, the judge held that the parties had approached the agreement on both the liability for consequential loss and the limit of liability under the warranties as inextricably linked. The parties had failed to agree a limit of liability for consequential loss under the sub-contract and the evidence showed that the parties had regarded this as essential to the formation of the contract. Haden was also correct in its submission that agreement upon the limit of liability under the warranties was essential to the formation of a contract between the parties. The evidence demonstrated the parties had accepted that there could be no binding subcontract until these terms were agreed.
It was also clear that the parties had proceeded on the footing that there would be no contract unless and until there was a formal signed and executed contract. The fact the Haden had conducted themselves consistent with their expectation that a subcontract would eventually be agreed did not detract from these conclusions. The judge commented that there were many cases where contractors or subcontractors start on site without having a concluded contract. Whilst those in a managerial capacity are negotiating the terms of the contract, these involved carrying out the work necessarily conduct the day to day operations by reference to the draft contract documentation. That conduct could not be taken as a representation that a contract existed.
On the final point concerning the scope of works, the judge was satisfied that this was a typical matter of detail and not something that was essential to the formation of the contract.
In conclusion, in the absence of a subcontract, Haden was entitled to reasonable remuneration under a quantum meruit for any works carried out by them. How that reasonable remuneration might be calculated will remain to be resolved at a later date. Nevertheless, for both parties this judgment will provide a timely reminder of the importance of securing all necessary terms of a contract at the earliest possible opportunity.
- Geoff Brewer
Brewer Consulting is an independent practice providing strategic management and commercial consultancy services to the construction, oil and gas, transportation and engineering industries.
The key services we provide are:
Procurement Management
Commercial Management
Dispute Resolution
Training
The breadth of our international experience and network of professional business partners allows us to undertake assignments worldwide. |
London
Tel: +44 (0)20 7389 3800
Epsom
Tel: +44 (0)1372 727100
Northampton
Tel: +44 (0)1604 620404
Stirling
Tel: +44 (0)1786 430800
Abu Dhabi
Tel: +971 (0)2 414 6670
Dubai
Tel: +971 (0)4 211 5305
admin@brewerconsulting.co.uk |
|
print