A building contract and a specification provided that no extras should be allowed or paid for unless ordered in writing by both architect and employer. When the building had been completed disputes arose upon claims made by the builder for extras. Those disputes were referred to arbitrators, and, they having disagreed, to an umpire. The umpire found that no orders in writing endorsed by the owner were given in respect of the item claimed for as extras, but that the employer had such knowledge of those extras as might be fairly inferred from the fact that he was constantly on the works, and taking an active interest therein. He stated a Special Case for the opinion of the Court under the ‘ Arbitration Act 1895 ‘ (Western Australia), setting forth the findings of fact above mentioned.
Held: that the umpire was the proper person to determine whether from the facts found by him an implied contract by the employer to pay for the extras was to be inferred, such an inference being one of fact, and that as he had not drawn the inference necessary to determine the question of liability, the case should be remitted to him, with directions showing the nature of the matter to be decided.
[1906] ArgusLawRp 158, (1907) 13 Argus LR 106
Austlii
Australia
Cited by:
Cited – Rock Advertising Ltd v MWB Business Exchange Centres Ltd SC 16-May-2018
The parties disputed whether a contract (licence to occupy an office) had been varied by an oral agreement, where the terms prohibited such.
Held: The ‘no oral variation’ clause applied. Such clauses were in common commercial use and served a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 20 July 2021; Ref: scu.666013
