'No concluded contract' ruling in €15.3m case

The High Court has ruled there was "no concluded contract" under which a building contractor was to be paid €15

The High Court has ruled there was "no concluded contract" under which a building contractor was to be paid €15.3 million by three other companies for constructing a housing scheme in Co Wicklow.

However, Mr Justice Peter Charleton held that McCabe Builders (MCB) is entitled to "reasonable" remuneration at 2005 prices from the defendant companies for work done on the development at Kilmacanogue. The remuneration will be decided later by an arbitrator.

He was giving his reserved judgment on an action by MCB against three other companies: Sagamu Developments, Laragan Developments and Hanly Group.

The issue in the case was whether the sides had ever concluded a contract in relation to the building for €15.3 million by MCB of some 32 house and 14 apartments at Kilmacanogue for the defendants.

READ MORE

Trust had broken down between the sides and they had a "radically different view" as to what contract was agreed between them, the judge said. They claimed there were different sets of offers and different acceptances, or non-acceptances, in relation to particular sections of the alleged contract.

After analysing the evidence and the law, and noting that a contract is not concluded unless the parties have agreed its essential terms, Mr Justice Charleton said he could not find there was a concluded contract between the sides.

The dispute highlighted the complex and onerous nature of building contracts, he said. The minds of the sides had never met on central issues, including pricing responsibilities, which were crucial to their differing understanding of what would otherwise be their mutual obligations. This absence of agreement on essential terms destroyed what would otherwise have been a valid contract.

It was his task to find the terms of the contract and the matter was then to be sent to arbitration as to the amount to be paid. The arbitrator should now deal with the case on the basis that MCB is entitled to reasonable recompense against the defendants for the benefit conferred on them by work already done by MCB under the purported contract.