DOCSLIB.ORG

Remedies Hypothetical Notes

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

REMEDIES HYPOTHETICAL NOTES TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction .................................................................................................................................................................... 2 Conclusion ....................................................................................................................................................................... 2 Compensation: Breach of Contract .............................................................................................................................. 3 Things that look like compensation but aren’t .......................................................................................................................... 7 Compensation in Tort .................................................................................................................................................... 8 Compensation under the ACL .................................................................................................................................... 13 Compensation: Equitable wrongs ............................................................................................................................... 16 Damages for Vindication (i.e. for the wrong itself).................................................................................................... 18 Punitive damages .......................................................................................................................................................... 19 Specific Performance .................................................................................................................................................... 20 Injunctions..................................................................................................................................................................... 23 A. Permanent Injunctions .......................................................................................................................................................... 23 B. Interlocutory injunctions ....................................................................................................................................................... 26 Lord Cairns’ Act damages (in lieu of specific performance or an injunction) ....................................................... 27 Gain-based remedies .................................................................................................................................................... 29 Account of profit (Disgorgement) .............................................................................................................................................. 29 Reasonable fee ............................................................................................................................................................................. 31 Restitution for Unjust Enrichment ............................................................................................................................. 32 Rescission....................................................................................................................................................................... 33 Rescission under the ACL .......................................................................................................................................................... 35 Constructive Trust ........................................................................................................................................................ 36 1 INTRODUCTION [X] may claim remedies under the following causes of action: Cause of action Advantages Disadvantages Breach of contract ❖ Can get expectation loss ❖ Limiting principles: damages causation, remoteness, mitigation Tort ❖ Exemplary damages a. Deceit available b. Negligent misrepresentation ❖ Reasonable fee award c. Private nuisance available for proprietary d. Trespass torts e. Detinue f. Conversion ACL (misleading and deceptive ❖ You don’t have to prove conduct) fraud ❖ Wide range of remedies available Unjust enrichment ❖ Don’t have to prove a wrong ❖ Status unclear in Australia was committed ❖ Useful where the contract is void, unenforceable, frustrated, rescinded, terminated Equitable wrong ❖ Account of profits available ❖ Discretionary bars to relief a. Breach of fiduciary duty ❖ CT available (no conflict + no profit) b. Breach of trust c. Breach of equitable duty of care and skill CONCLUSION To conclude, it is recommended that [X] pursues [causes of action] because [A, B, C]. 2 COMPENSATION: BREACH OF CONTRACT (1) Measuring expectation loss General rule: Where a party sustains a loss by reason of a breach of contract, he is, so far as money can do it, to be placed in the same situation, with respect to damages, as if the contract had been performed (Parke B, Robinson v Harman). No loss? → Where no loss is suffered, only nominal damages are available (Tramways). (1A) Identify the appropriate measure of damages State: Different measures exist to calculate expectation losses. [X] would want to argue that [FILL] is the appropriate measure of damages. ❖ Loss of profit ❖ Cost of rectification ❖ Reliance damages ❖ Loss of a chance (i) Loss of profit State: [X]’s loss of profit is the difference between his expected profit and actual profit. ❖ Measure: Profit loss = [expected profit] – [actual profit] ❖ Appropriate when: parties contracting are expecting to profit ❖ Ask: Can the expectation be quantified in a meaningful way such that the plaintiff can be compensated? o The standard reference point is market value, but this can be varied in appropriate circumstances (Clarke) Clarke v Marcourt: Appellant purchased 3513 sperm straws (2500 could reasonably have been used), but could only use 504 of them (others did not comply with guidelines). Spent $1.2 million on replacement straws; awarded difference between value of the promised goods and the market value of the goods (measured by the market) = $1.2 million (ii) Cost of rectification State: There are two different measures of damages in rectification cases: ❖ Cost of cure; or ❖ Diminution in value. A. Cost of cure State: In building or property cases, a court will prima facie award the cost of rectification, which is the cost of restoring/rectifying the property (Tabcorp). ❖ Appropriate when: The cost of cure will be the measure of loss if the cure is both necessary and reasonable (Bellgrove) √ Bellgrove v Eldridge (HCA): house built with defective mortar which made the house unstable; impossible to measure diminution in value with reference to market price of comparable houses as there was no market for such reference. ❖ Court awarded cost of cure. ❖ Contract concerns property with subjective value. √ Tabcorp (HCA): contractual lease provided that no substantial alterations could be done to the foyer; tenant made alterations to the foyer; awarded $1.38 million, reflecting the cost of restoration/rectification. ❖ Not appropriate when: Cost of rectification is unreasonable or disproportionate ❖ The court goes further than any other court by telling us that it is only in very exceptional circumstances that it would not be reasonable to get the cost of cure. ❖ A court might not award it where P is exploiting the breach to get something that they really should not have. Ruxley Electronics (UK case): pool built 1 ft 6 inches too shallow. The cost of cure was denied: ❖ The pool was still safe for diving ❖ There was no evidence that the reduced depth decreased the pool’s value ❖ The only practicable method of rectifying the issue was to rebuild the pool at a cost of £21,560 ❖ The judge was not satisfied that the respondent intended to build a new pool at that cost (careful with this point) ❖ The cost of cure was disproportionate to the benefit, rendering rectification unreasonable ❖ The respondent was nonetheless permitted an award of £2,500 for loss of amenity 3 Comparing Ruxley and Tabcorp Ruxley Tabcorp ❖ Pool was still usable for diving ❖ The foyer was no longer usable for its subjective ❖ The error was an accidental oversight (late oral purpose variation) ❖ There was a contumelious disregard for the ❖ Uncertainty existed as to the terms of the contract plaintiff’s wishes ❖ A specific term existed to protect the foyer Managing intervening acts ❖ Is rectification still possible? o If not, the rectification measure is not available, regardless of the intent of the plaintiff ❖ Does the plaintiff actually intend to rectify? o Intention to rectify was held to be irrelevant in Bellgrove. However, in Ruxley (English case) the court took into account that P would not have used rectification damages to reconstruct pool. Reasonableness ❖ Considerations of reasonableness also appear to be relevant in determining the preferred course to adopt (Ruxley). ❖ The key question is whether the plaintiff would benefit from the repair ❖ Nonetheless, the court in Tabcorp suggested that ‘reasonableness’ has a low threshold and that it is only in very exceptional circumstances that it would not be reasonable to award the cost of cure. ❖ Might be unreasonable where: ‘P is using a technical breach to secure an uncovenanted profit’ (Tabcorp) B. Diminution in value ❖ Measure: Difference in value = [the value of what you expected] – [the value of what you received] (iii) Reliance damages (or damages for wasted expenditure) State: Where expectation damages cannot be measured, a court may award
Recommended publications
  • Expectation, Reliance, and the Two Contractual Wrongs

    Expectation, Reliance, and the Two Contractual Wrongs

    Expectation, Reliance, and the Two Contractual Wrongs CHRISTOPHER T. WONNELL* TABLE OF CONTENTS L INTRODUCTION: THE PLACE OF EXPECTATION AND RELIANCE IN CONTRACTUAL DECISION MAKING ............................................. 54 A. Two ContractualDecisions in Need of Moral Assessment ................54 B. Six Motivesfor Making and Then Breaking a Particular Contract................................................................................................. 60 1. Taking Advantage of NonsimultaneousPerformances ................... 60 2. Making a Threat to Breach in the Face of Situational Monopoly Credible....................................................................... 62 3. Refusing to Carry Through on an Agreed-upon Allocation of Risk ......................................................................... 63 4. Seeking to AppropriateInformation Productively Brought to Bearon the Transactionby the Promisee..................... 66 5. Seeking to Avoid the Contract Because of a Mistake That Makes the ContractMore Burdensome to the PromisorThan Anticipated and Correspondingly More Profitableto the Promisee.................................................. 72 6. Seeking to Avoid the Contract Because of a Mistake That Makes the ContractMore Burdensome to the PromisorThan Anticipated Without Becoming CorrespondinglyMore Profitableto the Promisee........................ 75 * Professor of Law, University of San Diego School of Law. J.D. 1982, University of Michigan; B.A. 1979, Northwestern University. This Article was selected by
  • Why Expectation Damages for Breach of Contract Must Be the Norm: a Refutation of the Fuller and Perdue "Three Interests&Quo

    Why Expectation Damages for Breach of Contract Must Be the Norm: a Refutation of the Fuller and Perdue "Three Interests&Quo

    Nebraska Law Review Volume 81 | Issue 3 Article 2 2003 Why Expectation Damages for Breach of Contract Must Be the Norm: A Refutation of the Fuller and Perdue "Three Interests" Thesis W. David Slawson University of Southern California Gould School of Law, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/nlr Recommended Citation W. David Slawson, Why Expectation Damages for Breach of Contract Must Be the Norm: A Refutation of the Fuller and Perdue "Three Interests" Thesis, 81 Neb. L. Rev. (2002) Available at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/nlr/vol81/iss3/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law, College of at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in Nebraska Law Review by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. W. David Slawson* Why Expectation Damages for Breach of Contract Must Be the Norm: A Refutation of the Fuller and Perdue "Three Interests" Thesis TABLE OF CONTENTS 840 I. Introduction .......................................... Principal Institutions in a Modern Market II. The 843 Economy in Which Contracts Are Used ................ A. The Institution of the Economic Market: Contracts 843 as Bargains ....................................... Institution of Credit and Finance: Contracts as B. The 845 Property .......................................... 846 the Institutions' Needs ....................... III. Meeting 846 A. Providing a Remedy for Every Breach ............. Contracts Enforceable as Soon as They Are B. Making 847 M ade ............................................. Has Compensating the Injured Party for What He C. 848 ost ............................................... L 848 Damages Under the Expectation Measure ...... 1. 849 2. Damages Under the Reliance Measure ......... 849 a.
  • Reliance and Contract Breach

    Reliance and Contract Breach

    RELIANCE AND CONTRACT BREACH JIM LEITZEL* I INTRODUCTION Actions taken in reliance on a contract, and court protection of such reliance in the event of a breach, have been analyzed from both legal and economic perspectives.' This article compares the legal and economic approaches to contractual reliance and develops a model for examining the protection of expenditures in reasonable reliance. The protection of reasonable reliance potentially involves circular arguments: Courts will protect the amount of reliance in which a reasonable person would engage, but a reasonable person would rely up to the extent that courts will protect.2 This article shows that the protection of reasonable reliance may be well defined, despite the potential circularity. The economic analysis that has been done on contractual reliance has noted that the protection of reliance expenditures, in the event of a breach, may render such expenditures riskless from the viewpoint of the party engaging in the reliance. 3 Since reliance expenditures are inherently risky, 4 their protection may result in overreliance from society's point of view. Overreliance can be avoided if contractual damages are invariant with respect to reliance. 5 Damage "measures can be interpreted as invariant with respect to reliance by limiting recovery on the basis of reliance to costs that are reasonably incurred." 6 This interpretation of damages, however, is subject to the circularity problem inherent in reasonableness standards. This article uses the bilateral contract 7 as the context for the examination of reliance. This article focuses on the different answers provided by the Copyright © 1989 by Law and Contemporary Problems * Visiting Associate Professor of Economics, Duke University.
  • 1 Builders Risk Insurance

    1 Builders Risk Insurance

    BUILDERS RISK INSURANCE: Utilizing Builder’s Risk Policies to Help Settle Construction Defect Cases Finding the Oasis in the Desert Gregory N. Ziegler Rebecca M. Alcantar Katherine K. Valent MACDONALD DEVIN, P.C. I. What is Builder’s Risk insurance? Builder’s risk insurance is a unique form of first-party property insurance that typically covers a structure under construction, the materials and equipment used in construction, and the removal of debris of covered property damaged by a covered loss. Builder’s risk insurance policies are typically purchased by the project general contractor or the owner. It is sometimes called “course of construction” coverage because it is only intended to apply during the course of construction, erection, and fabrication of a structure until the construction is considered completed. Coverage typically commences on the “start date” of the project and ends when the work is completed. i. Who is covered? Builder’s risk policies cover the interests of owners, contractors, subcontractors and others involved in the construction project. While contractors and subcontractors are typically covered, it’s a good idea for contractors and subcontractors to request being named insureds on the policy. In comparison, liability insurance covers damage to third parties, such as passersby injured by construction or for damage to adjoining property. ii. What does it cover? Typically, it is written on an “all risks basis” and covers direct physical loss from all causes except those specifically excluded. This does not mean it covers everything, so it is important to look at the exclusions. Although it is typically limited to the construction site, an insured can request coverage for property stored off site and in-transit.
  • The Purpose of Compensatory Damages in Tort and Fraudulent Misrepresentation

    The Purpose of Compensatory Damages in Tort and Fraudulent Misrepresentation

    LENS FINAL 12/1/2010 5:47:02 PM Honest Confusion: The Purpose of Compensatory Damages in Tort and Fraudulent Misrepresentation Jill Wieber Lens∗ I. INTRODUCTION Suppose that a plaintiff is injured in a rear-end collision car accident. Even though the rear-end collision was not a dramatic accident, the plaintiff incurred extensive medical expenses because of a preexisting medical condition. Through a negligence claim, the plaintiff can recover compensatory damages based on his medical expenses. But is it fair that the defendant should be liable for all of the damages? It is not as if he rear-ended the plaintiff on purpose. Maybe the fact that defendant’s conduct was not reprehensible should reduce the amount of damages that the plaintiff recovers. Any first-year torts student knows that the defendant’s argument will not succeed. The defendant’s conduct does not control the amount of the plaintiff’s compensatory damages. The damages are based on the plaintiff’s injury because, in tort law, the purpose of compensatory damages is to make the plaintiff whole by putting him in the same position as if the tort had not occurred.1 But there are tort claims where the amount of compensatory damages is not always based on the plaintiff’s injury. Suppose that a defendant fraudulently misrepresents that a car for sale is brand-new. The plaintiff then offers to purchase the car for $10,000. Had the car actually been new, it would have been worth $15,000, but the car was instead worth only $10,000. As they have for a very long time, the majority of jurisdictions would award the plaintiff $5000 in compensatory damages 2 based on the plaintiff’s expected benefit of the bargain.
  • The Phantom Reliance Interest in Tort Damages

    The Phantom Reliance Interest in Tort Damages

    The Phantom Reliance interest in Tort Damages MICHAEL B. KELLY* TABLE OF CONTENTS L INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................... 169 IL THE RELIANCE INTEREST IN MISREPRESENTATION .............................................. 171 III. RELIANCE IN PERSONAL INJURY CASES ............................................................... 176 IV. WHAT DOES IT ALL MEAN? ....................................... ... .... .... .... .... ... ..... ... .... .... .. 189 I. INTRODUCTION The reliance interest has fascinated me for some time.' As a measure of damages for breach of contract,2 it seems theoretically unjustified and flawed in its implementation. In theory, it requires compensation for lost opportunities? In practice, such compensation is rarely provided'- * Professor of Law, University of San Diego School of Law. J.D. 1983, B.G.S. 1975, University of Michigan; M.A. 1980, University of Illinois. 1. Michael B. Kelly, The Phanton Reliance Interest in Contract Damages, 1992 WIS. L. REv. 1755. 2. My focus has been on contracts, full-fledged bargains, rather than promissory estoppel or other instances where the reliance interest might be applied. Much of my criticism of the reliance interest has been limited to this context. This Article will expand somewhat the scope of my criticism. 3. L.L. Fuller & William R. Perdue, Jr., The Reliance Interest in Contract Damages: 1, 46 YALE LJ. 52, 55, 60-61 (1936); Mark Pettit, Jr., PrivateAdvantage and Public Power: Reexamining the Expectation and Reliance Interests in Contract Damages, 38 HASTINGS L.J 417,420-21 (1987). unless one counts the expectation interest as a proxy for opportunities lost in reliance on a promise.5 In theory, it justifies recoveries that may exceed expectation.6 Yet, even its progenitors refused to endorse that implication.7 Why, then, does the reliance interest have continuing appeal? One explanation has emerged from discussions with academics: the reliance interest seems apt to some because it resembles tort remedies.
  • Good Faith, Unconscionability and Reasonable Expectations S M Waddams* the Expression 'Good Faith' Makes Frequent Appearances in Contract Law

    Good Faith, Unconscionability and Reasonable Expectations S M Waddams* the Expression 'Good Faith' Makes Frequent Appearances in Contract Law

    Good Faith, Unconscionability and Reasonable Expectations S M Waddams* The expression 'good faith' makes frequent appearances in contract law. The concept is firmly established in American jurisdictions because of its inclusion in the Uniform Commercial Code,1 and the Restatement of Contracts.2 It is in the new Quebec Civil Code.3 It forms an important part of many other civil law systems, and appears in a number of international documents applicable in common law jurisdictions.4 Several cases in Commonwealth jurisdictions have adopted it in various contexts.5 There has been much academic writing on good faith. English and Commonwealth writers have been divided in their opinions on whether the adoption of a general concept of good faith would be desirable.6 American writers, however, rarely discuss this question: the concept is sufficiently firmly fixed now for this to be of theoretical interest only.7 The focus of American writing is on what meaning should be given to the expression, and how it applies in different contexts. On a question of this sort, where the law is in many jurisdictions apparently in the process of change, two levels of analysis are necessary. It is of interest to examine the probable effect and utility of adopting, in English and Commonwealth law, a general doctrine of good faith. This process involves the identification of problems likely to be caused by the doctrine. It is of theoretical as well as of practical interest, and might well tend to suggest caution on the part of law reformers, legislative, judicial, and academic. But since the concept of good faith has found favour in several jurisdictions where it is unlikely to be decisively rejected, an equally important function of analysis is to suggest ways in which the problems of integrating good faith with other contractual concepts can be minimised.
  • Practical and Substantive Aspects of Subrogation

    Practical and Substantive Aspects of Subrogation

    PRACTICAL AND SUBSTANTIVE ASPECTS OF SUBROGATION Eric A. Dolden and Dan C. Richardson September 2015 [Author] © Dolden Wallace Folick LLP 1 CONTACT LAWYER Eric Dolden Dan Richardson 604.891.0350 604.891.5251 [email protected] [email protected] TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTORY COMMENTS ....................................................................................4 II. STATUTORY AND CONTRACTUAL PROVISIONS RECOGNIZING THE RIGHT OF SUBROGATION ....................................................6 1. Statutory Right of Subrogation ...........................................................................6 2. Contractual Right of Subrogation .......................................................................8 III. PROHIBITIONS ON SUBROGATION ........................................................................11 1. The Insurer As “Volunteer” ..............................................................................11 2. Covenants To Insure - The "Doctrine Of Legal Immunity” ..........................21 (a) Commercial tenancies ............................................................................22 (b) The scope of a covenant to insure .........................................................38 (c) Covenants to insure in other commercial settings .............................40 (d) Covenants to insure and indemnification ...........................................43 (e) "Legal immunity" in the statutory setting ...........................................45 (f) The liability of employees: Greenwood Shopping Plaza
  • Asset Tracing and Recovery Reassessed

    Asset Tracing and Recovery Reassessed

    Asset tracing and recovery reassessed Nicole Sandells QC Miles Harris 4 New Square Professional Liability & Regulatory Conference 4 February 2020 This material was provided for the 4 New Square Professional Liability & Regulatory Conference on 4 February 2020. It was not intended for use and must not be relied upon in relation to any particular matter and does not constitute legal advice. It has now been provided without responsibility by its authors. 4 NEW SQUARE T: +44 (0) 207 822 2000 LINCOLN’S INN F: +44 (0) 207 822 2001 LONDON WC2A 3RJ DX: LDE 1041 WWW.4NEWSQUARE.COM E: [email protected] Nicole Sandells QC Call: 1994 Silk: 2018 Nicole's practice in recent years has focused heavily on financial and property law, civil fraud, restitution, trusts, probate and equitable remedies alongside Chambers' mainstream professional indemnity work. She has significant experience of unjust enrichment, subrogation, breach of trust and fiduciary duty claims. She is never happier than when finding novel answers to tricky problems. Nicole is described as ‘a mega-brain, with encyclopaedic legal knowledge and the ability to cut through complex legal issues with ease’ and 'a master tactician who is exceptionally bright and has a fantastic ability to condense significant evidential information' (Legal 500). Apparently, she is also “exceptionally bright and a ferocious advocate. She gives tactical advice and is a pleasure to work with. Clients speak extremely highly of her.” “If you want someone to think outside of the box and really come up with an innovative position, then she’s an excellent choice.” – Chambers & Partners, 2020 Professional Negligence.
  • Reexamining the Expectation and Reliance Interests in Contract Damages Mark Pettit Jr

    Reexamining the Expectation and Reliance Interests in Contract Damages Mark Pettit Jr

    Hastings Law Journal Volume 38 | Issue 3 Article 2 1-1987 Private Advantage and Public Power: Reexamining the Expectation and Reliance Interests in Contract Damages Mark Pettit Jr. Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.uchastings.edu/hastings_law_journal Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Mark Pettit Jr., Private Advantage and Public Power: Reexamining the Expectation and Reliance Interests in Contract Damages, 38 Hastings L.J. 417 (1987). Available at: https://repository.uchastings.edu/hastings_law_journal/vol38/iss3/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at UC Hastings Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Hastings Law Journal by an authorized editor of UC Hastings Scholarship Repository. Article Private Advantage and Public Power: Reexamining the Expectation and Reliance Interests in Contract Damages by MARK PETTIT, JR.* Introduction Fifty years ago Fuller and Perdue asked why it is that in cases of breach of contract courts usually award "expectation" damages rather than "reliance" damages.I The authors defined these damages measures by their purposes.2 The object of the expectation measure "is to put the plaintiff in as good a position as he would have occupied had the defend- ant performed his promise."'3 The object of the reliance measure, on the other hand, is to "undo the harm" caused by reliance on a promise that was later broken, that is, "to put [the plaintif] in as good a position as he was in before the promise was made."'4 Fuller and Perdue concluded * Professor of Law, Boston University. A.B.
  • Practice Material on Wills

    Practice Material on Wills

    CAUTION The Professional Legal Training Course provides the Practice Material to users as an aid to developing entry level competence, with the understanding that neither the contributors nor the Professional Legal Training Course are providing legal or other professional advice. Practice Material users must exercise their professional judgment about the accuracy, utility and applicability of the material. In addition, the users must refer to the relevant legislation, case law, administrative guidelines, rules, and other primary sources. Forms and precedents are provided throughout the Practice Material. The users also must consider carefully their applicability to the client’s circumstances and their consistency with the client’s instructions. The Law Society of British Columbia and the Professional Legal Training Course can accept no responsibility for any errors or omissions in the Practice Material and expressly disclaim such responsibility. Professional Legal Training Course 2021 Practice Material Wills Recent Contributors: Allison A. Curley Denese Espeut-Post Deidre J. Herbert J. Jeffrey Locke Hugh S. McLellan Practice Material Editor: Katie McConchie September 2021 A requirement for admission to the bar of British Columbia, the Professional Legal Training Course is supported by grants from the Law Society of British Columbia and the Law Foundation of British Columbia. © 2021 The Law Society of British Columbia. See lawsociety.bc.ca > Terms of use. WILLS CONTENTS WILLS AND INTESTATE SUCCESSION [§1.01] The Estate 1 [§1.02] Disposition of Property by Will 2 [§1.03] Disposition of Property on Intestacy 2 1. Consequences of Intestacy 2 2. Intestacy Under WESA 3 3. Intestacy Under the Indian Act 5 [§1.04] Further Reading 6 FORMAL VALIDITY OF WILLS AND INTERPRETING WILLS [§2.01] Formalities 7 [§2.02] Curing Formal Deficiencies in a Will 7 [§2.03] Conflict of Law 8 [§2.04] Wills by Indigenous People 8 [§2.05] Revoking a Will 8 [§2.06] Altering a Will 9 [§2.07] Republishing and Reviving a Will 10 [§2.08] Special Types of Wills 10 1.
  • Defective Work Claims

    Defective Work Claims

    Defective Work Claims Jim Doyle Dip.CE, MIE (Aust) , BEc (Hons), LLB (Hons) Partner, Doyles Construction Lawyers Introduction A defective work claim is the most common claim made by owners. Unless otherwise stated in the contract, defective work entitles a building owner to rectify the defective work and/or claim damages against the builder in contract and/or at common law. The first part of this paper deals with the three identified periods within which defective work claim may be made. The second part will discuss the developing area of assessment of damages related to a defective work claim. The third part deals with grounds of defending a defective work claim. The aim of the paper is to outline what information must be sourced and principles followed to make or break a defective work claim. Time to Make Defect Claims There are three distinct periods in the progress of a building contract in which defective work claims can be made. The first period falls prior to the achievement of practical completion. The second period is subsequent to practical completion and during the defects liability period. The third period is after the issuance of the final certification of the building works. Defects Identified Prior to Practical Completion Different views have been expressed as to the status of defective work prior to practical completion. The suggestion that defects prior to practical completion were temporary disconformities 1 has not had many supporters. In fact, it is generally accepted that a contractor will be in immediate technical breach of contract whenever works fail to comply with contractual descriptions or requirements 2.