ABSTRACT
In 2009, the plaintiffs, Mr and Mrs Stone, entered into a contract with the defendants, Mr Chappel and Mr Smallacombe, to construct the shell and framework for an apartment in a retirement village. The contract specified that the ceiling height was to be 2,700 mm above floor level. However, upon construction, the height of the ceiling ranged from 32 mm to 57 mm below the specified height. The plaintiffs claimed approximately $330,000 in rectification damages to remedy the breach of contract. Whilst this case features a range of issues, this case note will focus on rectification damages and the Full Court’s analysis of whether the trial judge erred in denying rectification damages to compensate the plaintiffs for the cost of remedying the ceiling height. This case note will specifically analyse Kourakis CJ’s application of the doctrine of economic waste as a consideration in the question of reasonableness. It will be argued that his Honour’s application is unconventional in light of explicit and implicit High Court authority to the contrary and the inherent inconsistencies in the doctrine.
Bouchier, Jade, Stone v Chappel (2017) 128 SASR 165 Is the Doctrine of Economic Waste a Waste of Time? (2019) 40(2) Adelaide Law Review 599-608, University of Adelaide Law Research Paper No 2020-104.
First posted 2020-07-21 03:59:25
Leave a Reply