The Tribunal held that a Price Increase Agreement purporting to increase a fixed-price home building contract by 12% was unenforceable for want of consideration and void or voidable for economic duress. Applying the Williams v Roffey/Musumeci line of authority, the builder failed to establish that promising to complete existing contractual obligations constituted a 'practical benefit' to the owners sufficient to amount to fresh consideration, and fundamental uncertainties in the PIA's pricing and obligation structure rendered it void. The builder's claim that the owners' later refusal to pay under the PIA evidenced fraudulent intent at the time of signing was rejected as not supported by the evidence. On economic duress, the builder's extensive discretionary expenditure (including a $133,000 Porsche and work at cost for family members) at the very time it claimed inability to continue work destroyed the legitimacy of the stark commercial choice presented to the owners. The Tribunal also confirmed it lacks jurisdiction to entertain equitable estoppel as a basis for affirmative relief (as distinct from a defence) in home building claims.
The full text is available to signed-in members.