2 parties have a agreement to do some building works, if one side reneges on the financial basis of the agreement, is the other party obliged to go ahead and do the works?
2 leaseholders are doing some building works under a Project Manager. It is agreed that each party will pay their own costs apart from some shared soundproofing costs which are to be 50-50 and the Project Manager will apportion the soundproofing costs 50-50, which at first he does.
But then Party A realises one aspect of the soundproofing works will conflict with some of his later internal works. So he asks the Project Manager if it is possible that he be allowed to do this one part of the soundproofing works so long as the relevant soundproofing costs are removed from the accounts in wider contract.
It is agreed between Party A and Party B that these works can be removed but the soundproofing costs are not removed but in fact, unbeknownst to Party A, most of them have recently been shifted onto Party A's account with an extra unrelated £7,000 also shifted from Party B's account to Party A's account.
The Project Manager (who is in receipt of everyone's emails to each other) does not notify either party that the other one has agreed to the removal of works, or on what pre-conditions. However, he does issue an AI (Architect's Instruction) but this is uncosted as an omissionand is not copied to Party A.
When it comes to doing the soundproofing works, Party A then works out that the costs have been misapportioned but the Project Manager and Party B refuse to correct the accounts which is to the clear benefit of Party B (and themselves as they stand to gain 14% of the costs through their fees). Party B does not offer to pay their part of the shared costs of the soundproofing works that Party A asked to be removed, and after some major effort by Party A to clarify if the main contractor will do the work, Party A goes ahead with a different specification.
2 years later Party B makes a serious complaint to the freeholder and a dispute starts.
If Party B reneged on the initial agreement (to pay 50% of the costs) was Party A nevertheless obliged to go ahead later and do the works, even though he would have paid 100% of the costs himself and also would have had to pay the disproportionate amount through the misapportioned contract accounts?