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.
QUESTION: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?
Hello my name is Alex and I will help you with this. Please note that I am a working Solicitor and may be on and offline as I have to attend Court and meet with clients, even at weekends. As such you may not get an instant response when you reply as this is not an ‘on demand’ live service, but rest assured I will be giving your question my immediate attention upon return. There is no need to wait here, you will get an email when I reply.
If there is a contract that A would contribute 50% of the works and has gone back on that, as long as you can prove this was a contract and they were bound by it you can still sue on that contract.
Therefore if B was carrying out the works, B would still have to, if B was contracted to do so.
But would probably have to sue A for their 50%.
Can I clarify anything for you about this today please?
There was only a verbal agreement to do the works and the agreement to share costs 50-50 was drafted by the Project manager but this was never a signed agreement. The works are not part of a lease and there are no Building regs involved. The works were taken off the IFC98 contract before the contract was signed. There has never been any question that the works would have been shared 50-50 had they gone ahead under the IFC98 contract. The issue for Party B is thatthey claim that Party A promised to do the works, but they omit to mention their 50% share, and the Project manager did not mention Party A's precondition (that costs had to be reduced accordingly).
There was no contract for Party A to do the works. He proposed that he *could* do the works if the costs were reduced from the IFC98. But the Project Manager failed to do this and in fact greatly increased his share of the costs to the benefit of Party B.
I am Party A
Party B is accusing me of not doing the works.
That is a matter of evidence then.
Can it be sued on - yes
But whether or not a claim would succeed is another matter. Litigation is by no means certain
Can I clarify anything for you about this?
If this answers your question could I invite you leave feedback on my service which I hope has been excellent today, if you need more information or help then please click reply.
Please remember that I am always happy to help if you have future questions, even if I am in Court I can normally respond within a few hours. For future information, please start them with ‘For Alex W’.
Please bookmark my profile if you wish for future help: http://www.justanswer.co.uk/law/expert-alexwatts/
I tried to reply to this last week but it seems that you have mixed up the 2 parties.
Party A did not do the works. Party B did not pay for them. Party B wants Party A to do the works. Party A says "hey, you didn't pay for them to be done".
Party B does not mention the costs - just says that Party A promised to do them. But Party B does not have much evidence that this "promise" was ever agreed at the time. In fact, Party B never notified Party A of their agreement to the works being taken off the IFC98
There sis nothing in the IFC98 that says the works must be done. There is nothing in the lease that says the works must be done. Legally speaking there dis no issue - and also Building Regs says the works do not have to be done.
OK. It seems you are offline now
So I will rate again.
OK I am in a loop.
Hello you have rated POOR?
I do not understand why you have rated poor and what else you want to know?