Sopov & Anor v Kane Constructions Pty Ltd (No 2)

(2009) 24 VR 510; [2009] VSCA 141

Victorian Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Restitution
2. › Quantum meruit
3. › Work and labour done
4. › Building contract
5. › Owner's repudiation accepted by builder
6. › Whether quantum meruit available as alternative to contract damages
7. › Whether contract price operates as ceiling on quantum meruit
1. Restitution
2. › Quantum meruit
3. › Assessment of quantum
4. › Whether reasonable cost of works equates with reasonable value of works
5. › Whether profit and overhead margin recoverable
6. › Whether contractual entitlements affect quantum meruit calculation
1. Restitution
2. › Quantum meruit
3. › Building contract
4. › Influence of contract on quantum meruit assessment
5. › Whether rejected contractual variation claims deductible from quantum meruit
6. › Whether contractual delay costs deductible from quantum meruit
7. › Whether contractual deduction variations deductible from quantum meruit
1. Appeal
2. › New arguments on appeal
3. › Whether party may raise for first time on appeal arguments not put in issue at trial
4. › Whether failure to challenge reasonableness of costs at trial precludes challenge on appeal

Quick Take

Following acceptance of a building owner's repudiation, the builder may elect to claim on a quantum meruit assessed independently of the contract. The contract price is not a ceiling on recovery. Contractual entitlements — including rejected variation claims, delay costs, and deduction variations — are irrelevant to the quantum meruit assessment. A profit and overhead margin is recoverable as part of the quantum meruit. The reasonable cost of the works, including a builder's margin, is an appropriate measure of the value of the benefit conferred.