#15445 - Particulars Of Claim Contract - BPC Drafting

IN THE COUNTY COURT MONEY CLAIMS CENTRE

Claim No.111111111

BETWEEN:

MR. MARK PEMBERTON

Claimant

-and-

MR. GEOFF SHORT T/A QUALITY WINDOWS

Defendant

PARTICULARS OF CLAIM

1. The Claimant is the owner of a property known as Prandergast (“the Property”) situated in Windmill Lane, Ockhurst, Surrey. The Defendant is the owner and operater of a business known as Quality Windows which specialises in the design, manufacture and installation of bespoke windows and doors.

2. On 17 April 2016 the parties entered into an oral contract over the telephone for the design, construction and installation of 20 mahogany units (15 window units, 3 French doors and 2 solid hardwood panelled front and rear doors) for a total price of 80,000 plus VAT. 50% of the contract price was paid up front, and 50% due upon completion. The agreement made reference to the terms agreed in discussions on 2 March, 7 April and 10 April 2016.

3. On 2 March 2015 the following express terms were agreed during a discussion held at the Property:

   1. Georgian-style windows

   2. Georgian-style French doors in hardwood

   3. Solid hardwood front and rear doors in hardwood

   4. Equal sightlines across the horizontal and vertical elevations

4. On 7 April 2015, the Claimant chose mahogany hardwood out of samples shown to him at Property.

5. On 10 April 2015, during a telephone conversation, the Defendant offered to install ‘transom windows’ above the internal doors and faxed through a design sketch, which the Claimant accepted. The Defendant made no mention of the inherent reduction in door height this would entail.

6. The Defendant entered into the contract in the course of his business and the following terms are therefore implied:

   1. The Defendant would carry out the work with reasonable care and skill.

   2. The units would be of satisfactory quality.

   3. The units would be reasonably fit for the purposes for which they were acquired.

7. The Defendant began work on the Property on 6 July 2016.

8. On 10 July 2016 the Claimant returned to the property to discover that the contract had been breached in the following ways:

   1. The units are made of Douglas Fir, a cheaper softwood, and not the contracted mahogany hardwood.

   2. The sightlines of the Georgian windows and internal doors are unacceptably misaligned.

   3. The doors are of substandard height so much so that the Claimant cannot gain access through them.

   4. The rear and front doors have not been properly screwed into the wall.

   5. The hinges on the kitchen door are not properly positioned.

   6. There are gaps around some of the window frames allowing water to penetrate.

PARTICULARS OF LOSS AND DAMAGE

9. As a result of the Defendant’s repudiatory breach of the...