Building
contracts allowing recovery of increased costs are unlikely to cover quoting errors
the High Court ruled in a dispute over roofing costs for a Blockhouse Bay
construction in Auckland.
Riteline Roofing Ltd sued
customer Maruti Investments Ltd after finding a roof installation exceeded its
original measurement by 73 square metres.
The two could not agree whether building plans used for measurement
accurately represented the finished building.
There was also a dispute about alleged on the job discussions over final
measurements and costs. Riteline says a
‘cost increase’ clause in the contract allows it to recover extra in any event.
Riteline took steps to
force Maruti Investments into liquidation over its claimed extra costs. The High Court blocked liquidation, saying there
is a substantial dispute over the alleged debt.
Associate judge Doogue ruled a full court hearing is needed. There is a factual dispute over accuracy of
the plans. A ‘cost increase’ clause
enables contractors to pass on their suppliers’ increased costs; it does not
fit easily with a mistake in quoting he said.
Maruti
Investments Ltd v. Riteline Roofing Ltd – High Court (24.11.17)
18.008