This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. Learn more

Davis Contractors v Fareham Urban District Council [1956] UKHL 3; [1956] AC 696; [1956] 3 WLR 37; [1956] 2 All ER 145

By Oxbridge Law TeamUpdated 21/04/2024 19:30

Judgement for the case Davis Contractors v Fareham Urban District Council

KEY POINTS

  • Various factors, such as unforeseen circumstances, resource shortages, or inefficiencies in work execution, can extend the time beyond the agreed or expected completion date of a project or task.

  • A legal principle allowing for the recovery of reasonable value for services rendered or work performed typically applies when no specific contract exists or when a contract is unenforceable.

    • A predetermined deadline or timeline outlined in a contract for the satisfactory conclusion of a project or task, providing a benchmark for performance and accountability.

    • Integrating the terms and conditions outlined in a tender submission into the final contract between parties establishes the obligations and responsibilities of each party.

  • Determining whether a cover letter accompanying a tender submission is considered part of the contractual agreement impacts the rights and obligations of the parties involved.

FACTS

  • On July 9, 1946, contractors signed a building contract with a local authority to construct 78 houses for a fixed sum within eight months.

    • Alongside their form of tender, dated March 18, 1946, the contractors attached a letter stipulating that the tender was subject to the availability of adequate labor supplies as and when required.

    • Due to unforeseen circumstances, without fault on either party's part, the necessary labor supplies were unavailable as expected.

    • Consequently, the completion of the construction work extended beyond the agreed-upon period, taking 22 months to finish.

  • The contractors asserted two key contentions:

    1. They argued that the contract price was contingent upon adequate labor supplies, as the March 18, 1946 letter specified.

    2. They contended that the contract had been frustrated due to unforeseen circumstances, entitling them to claim an amount exceeding the contract price based on the principle of quantum meruit.

JUDGEMENT

  • The court held that:

    1. The March 18, 1946 letter was not incorporated into the contract.

    2. The contract had not been frustrated.

    3. The court emphasized that unexpected events, without fault on either party's part, that made the contract more burdensome than initially anticipated did not warrant relieving the contractors of their contractual obligations or permitting them to seek recovery based on quantum meruit.

  • The decision of the Court of Appeal was affirmed.

COMMENTARY

  • This case shows the complexities inherent in construction contracts and the legal principles governing them.

    • It highlights the significance of clear terms and conditions in contracts and the challenges that arise when unforeseen events disrupt project timelines.

  • The contractors' attachment of a letter to their tender submission, outlining conditions related to labor supply, raises questions about the incorporation of such documents into the final contract.

    • The court's determination that the letter was not incorporated emphasizes the importance of explicit language and formal procedures in contract formation.

  • The case delves into the doctrine of frustration and the principle of quantum meruit.

    • While the contractors argued that unforeseen circumstances had frustrated the contract, the court held otherwise, emphasizing that mere difficulties or increased burdens did not constitute frustration.

    • This decision underscores the need for parties to anticipate and address potential contract risks, rather than relying on frustration as a relief.

  • The court's refusal to allow recovery based on quantum meruit highlights the importance of upholding contractual obligations, even in challenging circumstances.

    • It reaffirms that parties must fulfill their agreed-upon responsibilities, regardless of unforeseen difficulties.

  • This case serves as a reminder of the importance of clarity, foresight, and adherence to contractual obligations in construction contracts, while also providing insight into the application of legal principles such as frustration and quantum meruit in contractual disputes.

Any comments or edits about this case? Get in touch

For Further Study on Davis Contractors v Fareham Urban District Council

Need instant answers? Our AI exam tutor is here to help.

Ask questions 🙋 Get answers 📔 It's simple 👁️👄👁️

Our AI is educated by the highest scoring students across all subjects and schools. Join hundreds of your peers today.

Get Started

Similar Cases

    Related Product Samples

    These product samples contain the same concepts we cover in this case.

    Claim every advantage to get a first in law
    Contract Law Notes
    1,511 total pages
    752 purchased

    Contract law notes fully updated for recent exams at Oxford and Cambrid...