Boss Constructions (NSW) Pty Ltd v Rohrig

Background

1. The course of the commercial dealings between the parties was extensive. The Court Book runs to some 3000 pages. I will recite only those facts I have found which are necessary to reveal why I have reached the conclusions I have reached.
2. On 2 November 2017, Rohrig invited Boss to quote for the work.
3. On 9 November 2017, Boss provided a quotation which included supplying, delivering and erecting structural steel members. The quotation included supply of drawings for the purpose of fabrication and erection. Boss quoted $526,140 plus GST of $52,614, totalling $578,754. The quotation stated that it would be verified following Boss' response to receiving and perusing "Issued for Construction" drawings. Boss offered two options for payment, one based on identified stages and the other being "sign-off invoice at the end of each month to enable factoring". The quotation was accompanied by comprehensive terms and conditions of sale.
4. The quotation made provision for signed acceptance by Rohrig. Rohrig did not sign acceptance.
5. On 15 November 2017, Boss provided Rohrig with a "rough schedule" that saw Boss starting work on 16 November 2017 and reaching practical completion on 21 March 2018.
6. On 15 November 2017, Rohrig emailed Boss, relevantly, as follows: Please take this email as formal intent for Rohrig NSW Pty. Ltd to enter into a contract agreement with Boss Constructions for the Structural Steel Works at Penrith Anglican College for the value of $526,000 + GST. The contract is to be drafted as per the latest scope of works, recent discussions and agreements. I will endeavour to send through your works order and contractual documents by the end of next week.
7. At this time architectural drawings were in existence. However, more detailed shop drawings were needed for the manufacture of the structural steel component which involved some complexity. Boss' quotation included an allowance of $35,000 for the cost of shop drawings. KBN Drawings, specialist draftspersons, were identified to do this work after a quotation from another organisation, BDC Consultants, had been obtained but was thought by Rohrig to be too high.
8. On 20 November 2017, Rohrig sent Boss a full set of "For Construction" documents by way of an internet "Dropbox" link. The evidence does not disclose any verification by Boss of its quote.
9. On 20 November 2017, Boss issued a purchase order to KBN to do the shop drawings for a fee of $26,400 including GST. Boss, it seems, had some reservations about retaining KBN, but ultimately there is no complaint about their work. It transpired that more work than what they quoted for was necessary. However, Rohrig bore the extra cost.
10. On 5 December 2017, Rohrig sent Boss a proposed formal contract consisting of a Works Order, Rohrig Standard Payment Terms, and a National Works Period Agreement. The National Works Period Agreement was in the form of an instrument headed "Deed". The basic structure of the proposed transaction was that, under the Deed, Boss agreed to receive Works Orders in the given form for particular jobs on detailed terms and conditions. Boss did not execute the Deed. Mr Bobos said he had received legal advice to not do so.
11. The Works Order provided a Works/Supply Description and Details of the work by reference, amongst others, to architectural drawings. It included the following: Details: Works Order No.: 1702-9012 Contractor Code: BOSSCON0 Date for Contractor Commencement: 01.09.2017 Date for Contractor Completion: 30.03.2018 Site Address: 338/356 Wentworth Road, Orchard Hills Map Reference: N/A Site Manager: Greg Bruce Rate of Liquidated Damages: $1,200 / Day Whether Design work is included: No (emphasis added)

1. On 25 December 2017, Boss rendered an invoice to Rohrig for $25,025 as part payment for workshop drawings. Rohrig paid this invoice on 28 February 2018.
2. The works order contained, under the heading Speacial [sic] Conditions Applicable to this Works Order, Clause 5.1, which provided: This Works Order has been generated and issued pursuant to the Works Period Agreement made between Rohrig and the Contractor ("Deed") and is subject to the terms of that Deed. Unless the Contractor commences the works or services covered by this Works Order sooner (in which event the terms of the Deed and this Works Order shall be deemed accepted by the Contractor and binding upon the commencement of such works or services by the Contractor) it is otherwise the Contractor's responsibility to review the terms of the Deed and this Works Order (including the Contract Sum) and to notify Rohrig in writing within 48 hours of receiving this Works Order of any issues that it has with this Works Order, otherwise, subject to the terms of the Deed, this Works Order will be deemed to have been accepted by the Contractor and is binding on the Contractor.
3. On 10 January 2018, Rohrig emailed Mr Bobos, relevantly: In addition to my previous email, our accounting system has advised that you have still not returned your contracts for Penrith Anglican College (see attached email sent through on Tuesday 05.12.17). To avoid your payments being held this month, could you please print, read, sign and return the Works Order, Work's Period Agreement and Terms and Conditions as soon as possible.
4. On 5 February 2018, Rohrig emailed Boss, relevantly, that Progress Claim 1 was being held due to the contracts not being signed and returned by Boss.
5. On 26 February 2018, Boss sent Rohrig a proposed contract in the form of a mark-up of the Deed dated 25 February 2018 (26 February mark-up). The proposed changes were extensive. Clause 25 of the "Terms" proffered by Rohrig on 5 December 2017 provided as follows: Rohrig may terminate this Contract without reason, at any time, for its sole convenience and in its absolute discretion (including for the purposes of having the remaining work performed by others at any time), by giving one (1) weeks notice in writing to the Contractor (and Rohrig will only be liable to the Contractor for the payments of any amounts payable under this Contract to the date of termination under this clause, as determined by Rohrig, plus the sum of $200.00 as consideration for Rohrig exercising its rights under this clause 25.3).
6. The covering letter contained a list and description of the amendments being sought by Boss, and included the following words: "Clause 25.3 Removed or replace with $200,000.0 [sic]."
7. On the handwritten mark-up sent by Mr Bobos, Clause 25.3 was crossed out and "or $200,000" was written beneath it. I read this as connoting that Boss was offering either no Clause 25.3, or that the figure in it be $200,000. Boss' mark-up also deleted the reference in the Works Order to liquidated damages.
8. There is no evidence that this proposal found favour with Rohrig.
9. As early as 2 March 2018, Boss issued a purchase order to an organisation called Apex Steel Supplies and, on 6 March 2018, placed another one with an organisation called Online Laser for the manufacture and supply of metal components.
10. The parties met on 13 March 2018 in Broken Hill and again in Sydney on 14 March 2018.
11. It had apparently become clear that more work on the drawings was needed. Boss made a number of points about the contractual position between the parties. Rohrig made it clear that the majority of the Boss marked-up changes had not been accepted. Boss took the position that it could only continue on the basis of the marked-up version when it received a signed version of that document and an approved variation for additional drafting and steel work. It expressed a willingness to complete only the centre section of the steel work and to deliver to site to avoid any further delays to the project, but said it was unprepared to complete any further works until its version of the proposed contract had been accepted.
12. On 20 March 2018, Rohrig wrote to Bobos, relevantly, as follows: We have spoken with our General Manager and agreed to compromise with the contract. Our original contract which we initially sent through will now be substituted with a Small Works Package - Contract Agreement (please see attached). This Small Works Package is similar to that of the Work's Order [sic] which had been sent through originally, however, we've taken your comments on board and amended it accordingly. Can you please let me know if you have any further issues with the attached information or if both parties can now agree to sign this.
13. The Small Works Package was attached. It included the following: Details: Works Order No.: 1702-9012 Contractor Code: BOSSCON0 Date for Contractor Commencement: 01.09.2017 Date for Contractor Completion: 29.05.2018 Site Address: 338/356 Wentworth Road, Orchard Hills Map Reference: N/A Site Manager: Greg Bruce Rate of Liquidated Damages: $250.00 / Day Capped @ 2% of Contract (emphasis added)

1. Rohrig went on to press for the delivery of steel and that Boss meet specified deadlines.
2. On 21 March 2018, Boss gave Rohrig a Notice of Variation (1) for additional drafting which it estimated at $33,000 excluding GST. Boss, it seems, may also have given Rohrig a Notice of Variation (2) for $39,000 excluding GST for additional steel. The evidence is not conclusive as to whether this notice was actually sent and, if it was, whether it was on 21 March 2018 or 5 April 2018.
3. On 23 March 2018, Nova Cashflow Finance, an entity with whom Boss had factored its invoices, sent an Invoice Acknowledgement Form to Rohrig asking it to acknowledge that all goods and services relating to invoice Number 1036, dated 25 March 2018 for $130,570, had been completed and accepted. Acknowledgement was signed, apparently on behalf of Rohrig, for $118,700, and was subsequently paid.
4. By 3 April 2018, Rohrig was complaining that Boss was three months behind schedule. Boss' position, as revealed in an email to Rohrig on 6 April 2018, was that it wanted its variations agreed to before further steps towards fabrication would be taken.
5. On 5 April 2018, Boss sent a Notice of Variation (3) for ChemSet Anchors and studs in the amount of $6950.
6. On 11 April 2018, Boss sent Rohrig "Works Package Amendments" to the Works Package that Rohrig had proposed in its 20 March 2018 email. The proposed amendments were extensive.
7. On 19 April 2018, Rohrig wrote to Boss, relevantly: As discussed earlier today over the phone, our position moving forward is the attached works order is the final draft of the contract we are willing to provide with your quotation attached to the back of it. We believe this to be fair and reasonable compared to what was put forward originally & will allow both parties to complete the works together and amicably.
8. On 20 April 2018, Boss sent Rohrig a series of proposed contractual documents including a Contract Variation Letter dated 20 April 2018 and a marked-up and amended version of the Small Works Package previously provided by Rohrig.
9. That day, Boss also sent a letter offering two alternative proposals. Proposal 1 was construction of the centre and north sections for $321,986. Proposal 2 was construction of all sections for $632,900. This is to be contrasted with Boss' original quotation for $526,140 excluding GST.
10. On 20 April 2018, Rohrig emailed Boss stating, relevantly, that Rohrig: do not agree with the amendments boss [sic] has sent through and will hold firm on our attached works order Rohrig have compromised [sic] and worked in with boss [sic] request and when agreeme [sic] was made they have amended contract again so this is our final contract boss [sic] will need to comprimise [sic] to meet out terms. I did however agree to attach boss [sic] quote to the back of the works order as an addenddum [sic].
11. On 30 April 2018, Boss emailed Rohrig pressing for acceptance of one of the two options. The email attached a handwritten mark-up of the Small Works Package, signed by Mr Bobos on 28 April 2018, which included the two options.
12. After 30 April 2018, there were various communications between the parties, amongst others, about detailed drawing work that needed to be done for steel fabrication.
13. On 1 May 2018, Rohrig emailed Boss stating, relevantly, that "Boss is engaged for $526k to do the works including centre, north, east and west buildings."
14. The parties met on 28 May 2018 and discussed, amongst other matters, delays to the project and the possibility of Boss accelerating performance and being paid for it.
15. On 25 June 2018, Boss made Payment Claim no 6.
16. On 13 July 2018, Rohrig emailed Boss with suggested amendments to "the signed contract" which Boss had sent through. This appears to be a reference to the signed 28 April 2018 document which Boss had emailed on 30 April 2018.
17. On 25 July 2018, Boss made Payment Claim no 7. Boss claimed for 100 per cent of the materials, acceleration costs and an amount for extra steel tonnage. (At the hearing - although it does not affect the result - Boss conceded that purlins and girts, which it claimed for as part of the materials and which it had ordered from an organisation called Stramit, had in fact not been delivered and had not been paid for by it.)
18. On 2 August 2018, Boss gave its Notice of Suspension of Work to Rohrig.
19. On 8 August 2018, Rohrig delivered a Payment Schedule under the Act. Apart from pointing out that the invoices forming the basis of the claim did not add up to the total claimed, and that some of them had been included in Payment Claim no 6, Rohrig proposed to pay a nil amount.
20. In its Payment Schedule, Rohrig stated that it and Boss were parties to a contract "based on the Small Works Package document issued by Rohrig and signed by Boss on 28 April 2018." It annexed to its Payment Schedule a version of the form signed by Boss on 28 April 2018 but further marked-up by Rohrig, amongst others, so as to delete Boss' two options and record the contract price as $526,000 plus GST.
21. On 13 August 2018, Rohrig gave its Notice of Termination of Contract to Boss. Its notice described the contract as "created by Smalls [sic] Works Package no. 1702 - 9012".
22. On 14 September 2018, the adjudicator delivered his adjudication determination. The adjudicator's determination was that Boss had accepted the terms proffered by Rohrig on 5 December 2017, which contained a stipulation that Boss could accept those terms by undertaking work, which it did notwithstanding Mr Bobos' apparent reservations. He considered that the parties may have later looked to negotiate fresh terms, but he was not satisfied that they did.

The PArties' Claims

1. Boss initiated these proceedings by suing out a Summons on 21 September 2018. [2]
2. Boss alleges that the parties entered into a contract on 28 April 2018, under which Boss would carry out the supply, fabrication, and erection of structural formwork in return for which Rohrig would pay the contract sum of $636,669 (including GST) plus other costs or such other sum as would become payable to it pursuant to the provisions of the tender and "precluded subcontract". [3]
3. Boss alleges that engineering and architectural drawings were lacking in information so as not to be able to provide an accurate tender and that it had to redesign connections and provide missing information pertaining to the design, causing it to incur "uncharged hours to redesign the building structure". It also alleges that it carried out additional works to the original scope "with respect to which is submitted as Additional Resources and Variation claims which have been accepted in part and … claims the balance of monies due and payable under the contract, unpaid variation claims, and additional resources claims."
4. In its Amended Construction List Statement, filed on 7 December 2018, Boss describes the Nature of Dispute as concerning the "outstanding monies owed" to it "for the amount of $224,928.88 for works carried out including GST, plus $200,000 for termination of the contract deed".
5. In the body of the document, the figure claimed is $271,209.46, being the balance of unpaid claims on a series of invoices - including parts of Payment Claims 6 and 7 - not the subject of payment under the adjudication determination.
6. Boss alleges that from time to time, at the request of Rohrig, it brought and/or retained additional resources, by way of extra labour and machinery, on site or at its workshop to carry out additional works so as to assist Rohrig in maintaining the continuity of and/or accelerating the works. The amount claimed for this is $271.209.46.
7. In its written submissions, however, Boss reverted to a sum of $224,928.88. It also provided a table that resulted in the figure of $301,404.46 being proffered, purportedly as the figure representative of the shortfall in payment of invoices rendered and not fully paid. This figure included a retention of $31,195.
8. A further figure suggested by Mr Bobos was $195,859.51, being the difference between Boss' asserted total cost of completion, which was $731,443, less the total of $535,583.49 already paid to Boss by Rohrig.
9. How these various figures are to be reconciled was not revealed. Given my conclusion that there was no contract, it does not matter.
10. Boss alleges that Rohrig terminated the contract, rendering it liable to pay the $200,000 termination fee.
11. As I understand it, Boss' contention, as elucidated by Mr Bobos in argument, is that the contract consists of a combination of:

• the 26 February mark-up, including the National Works Period Agreement (amended to include the $200,000 cancellation fee) but excluding either version of the Small Works Package, that is the version sent to Boss on 5 December 2017 and the marked up version sent back on 26 February 2018, plus
• the version of the Small Works Package which he signed on 28 April 2018.

1. As I understand it, Mr Bobos puts that the 28 April 2018 mark-up of the Small Works Package is to be taken as substituted for the earlier versions because Rohrig, in its Payment Schedule under the Act, asserted that the contract was based on that document.
2. In its written submissions, Boss made reference to an estoppel, which was not articulated but which I understand to be a contention that Rohrig is estopped from denying the existence of a contract on the terms of the 26 February mark-up. No estoppel was pleaded and Boss cannot be permitted to run it. In any event, the evidence did not establish any reliance by Boss to its detriment on any relevant representation made by Rohrig or common assumption held by the parties. Mr Bobos also made reference to a complaint that Rohrig had unlawfully used the drawings Boss had retained KBN to produce. He did not articulate what should flow from this if this were correct. Moreover, Rohrig paid substantial amounts for the drawings.
3. Rohrig cross-claims against Boss for damages for breach of contract. It contends that the contract between the parties is embodied in a series of written instruments that it proffered to Boss on 5 December 2017 and which it says Boss agreed to by conduct in commencing work and rendering to it two invoices dated 25 December 2017 and 25 January 2018 respectively. The 25 December 2017 invoice for $25,025 was paid on 28 February 2018. According to Boss' submissions, the January 2018 invoice for $11,550 was paid on 15 March 2018 but no evidentiary reference was provided.
4. Rohrig contends that the contract includes a provision entitling it to liquidated damages of $1200 per day for delay past the "Date for Substantial Completion" which it contends was either 30 March 2018 or 29 May 2018, until the date it terminated the contract, being 13 August 2018, a period of either 96 or 76 days and equating to $115,200 or $91,200.
5. Rohrig also asserts that it lawfully terminated its contract with Boss for breach as a consequence of which it suffered loss of bargain damages, calculated as follows. The initial contract price was $578,547 and Rohrig approved variations in the amount of $38,525, bringing the total contract price to $617,072. Rohrig paid Boss $535,583.49 and, had the bargain been performed, Rohrig would have paid Boss an additional $81,488.51. Instead, Rohrig engaged Allarc to complete the contract at a cost of $298,770. Its net loss is therefore $217,281.49, for which amount it is claimed.
6. As things stand, Boss delivered about 18 tonnes of steel short of what was contracted for - the cost of which more than offsets the $81,488.51. At the very least, Boss has been paid for what it did.
7. At the hearing, no doubt arising out of a discussion between the Bench and counsel, Rohrig sought to put a submission, in the alternative, that a contract was formed, on the basis of Boss' quotation, which included an implied term that the work would be completed in a reasonable time, which time would be informed by the time that Boss had indicated it could complete the work in and the time within which Rohrig had indicated it required the work to be done. Rohrig also sought to argue that it is entitled to damages for delay based on the cost of its time related preliminaries, at a weekly rate. This case was not pleaded and Rohrig cannot, especially when its opponent is not legally represented, be permitted to run it.

Disposition

1. Neither party established the contract for which it contends. The parties contemplated entering into a contract, and acted on the footing that one would be entered into, but never did.
2. Both parties' causes of action are exclusively in contract. Each must therefore fail.
3. Boss' reliance on s 27 of the Act in suspending work misfired, as did Rohrig's purported termination of a supposed contract between it and Boss.
4. Boss did work for which it was paid. It failed to finish all the work that was contemplated by the parties. Boss made no quantum meruit claim in its pleadings, and the material before the Court would not enable it to assess a claim on that basis in any event. Rohrig did not come to court to meet such a claim. Conversely, Rohrig makes no claim for restitution of monies which it paid over to Boss.
5. Whether an agreement has been entered into is to be objectively assessed: Ermogenous v Greek Orthodox Community of SA Inc (2002) 209 CLR 95 at 105 [25]; Franklins Pty Limited v Metcash Trading Ltd [2009] NSWCA 407 at [4]; McMahon's (Transport) Pty Ltd v Ebbage [1995] 1 Qd R 185 at 195. The objective theory of contract requires an external manifestation of assent to an offer. Whether there has been such an assent turns on whether a reasonable bystander would regard the conduct of the offeree as signalling to the offeror that his offer has been accepted: Empirnall Holdings Pty Limited v Machon Paull Partners Pty Ltd (1988) 14 NSWLR 523 at 534-5.
6. It is convenient first to deal with Boss' asserted contract, although it is said to have been concluded later in time than the contract asserted by Rohrig.
7. Boss asserts that the contract sum was $636,669.
8. The derivation of this contract sum is not clear. It is not far off the figure of $632,900 (ex GST), which was the subject of Proposal 2 in Boss' 28 April 2018 mark-up. There does not appear to be any basis for the figure in the List Statement. One matter is, however, abundantly clear: Rohrig did not accept Proposal 2 (nor, for that matter, Proposal 1). Boss did not establish any contract for the Proposal 2 amount or for the amount referred to in its List Statement.
9. Rohrig accepted none of Boss' mark-ups.
10. Leaving this aside, as to the $200,000 cancellation fee, Boss offered alternative options of no Clause 25.3 or a clause with the figure $200,000 inserted. Rohrig opted for neither.
11. As mentioned earlier, during the hearing Boss put that it was unpaid to another amount being the difference between what it says the whole project cost it and what it was paid. No foundation for a claim based on this approach was laid or established.
12. I now turn to Rohrig's asserted contract. First, Rohrig contends that Boss should be taken to have accepted its proffered terms because the Works Order, proffered on 5 December 2017, contained Clause 5.1, which deems Boss to have accepted the terms of the Deed and the Work Order upon the commencement of the works or services covered by the Works Order.
13. Second, Rohrig contends that by its conduct in commencing work - in the form of retaining KBN - and rendering invoices, Boss accepted Rohrig's offer on the terms communicated on 5 December 2017.
14. I do not accept these submissions on two bases. First, the first submission entails Rohrig attempting to pull itself up by its own bootstraps. There is no evidence that Clause 5.1 came to the attention of Boss at any relevant time, let alone before it started work. Rohrig's ex post facto attempt to rely on a provision never agreed to in the first place as itself bringing about agreement is circular and unsound.
15. Second, Rohrig's covering letter requested Boss to print, read and sign the instruments. The overarching instrument was a Deed, which on its face contemplated execution by both parties. Implicit in the offer was that there would be no agreement unless a document was signed.
16. Whether there was a contract is to be assessed on the footing of whether a reasonable bystander would regard Boss as having signalled to Rohrig that its offer had been accepted.
17. Rohrig conceded that the only conduct which could have amounted to such a signalling had to have occurred between 5 December 2017 and the receipt by Rohrig of Boss' 26 February mark-up, when Boss made it clear that it was rejecting the 5 December 2017 offer in Rohrig's suite of documents.
18. It is to be remembered that Boss had issued the purchase order to KBN before 5 December 2017. Boss was committed to KBN before the time Rohrig's asserted offer could have been accepted.
19. It is also to be remembered that by its email of formal intent on 15 November 2017, Rohrig made it clear that the contract was to be drafted as per the latest scope of works, recent discussions and agreements, making it clear that its expectation was the execution of a written agreement.
20. From 5 December 2017, Rohrig itself did not act as if there was a contract in place.
21. To the contrary, not only did it assert the non-existence of a binding agreement on the terms of the 5 December 2017 documents, on 10 January 2018, it told Boss that it had still not returned the contracts and said, in effect, that if this did not happen, payments would be withheld. Not even in its Payment Schedule under the Act did it assert a contract on the 5 December 2017 terms.
22. By the time Rohrig paid Boss' invoice dated 25 December 2017 on 28 February 2018, Rohrig had received Boss' 26 February 2018 mark-up. Its payment after receiving that document would hardly have been regarded by an objective bystander as acceptance by Rohrig of Boss' 26 February mark‑up.
23. In its 20 March 2018 email, Rohrig did not assert the existence of a binding contract but referred to "our original contract which we initially sent through".
24. In its 19 April 2018 email, Rohrig referred to the attached Works Order as the final draft of the contract they were willing to provide. Rohrig said that it believed this to be fair and reasonable, compared to what was put forward originally, and would allow the parties to complete the work amicably.
25. On 26 February 2018, Rohrig could have been under no illusion that Boss had accepted its proffered terms.
26. At the meetings on 13 and 14 March 2018, Rohrig communicated that the majority of Boss' mark-ups had not been accepted. Boss' attitude was that it would not continue unless its version had been signed.
27. On 20 March 2018, Rohrig emailed Boss stating that they had "agreed to compromise with the contract … [and] [o]ur original contract sent through will now be substituted with a Small Works Package - Contract Agreement". There was no assertion that a contract had been entered into. A significant shift in Rohrig's position was that the rate of liquidated damages in the Small Works Package had reduced from $1,250 per day to $250 per day capped at 2% of the contract value.
28. Boss never accepted this offer. Instead, it put two proposals to Rohrig neither of which was accepted. The furthest Rohrig went towards acceptance of a proposal was in its email dated 1 May 2018 in which it noted that Boss was engaged for $526,000 to do works on the centre, north, east and west buildings.
29. The conduct of each party can be characterised as seeking to impose, unsuccessfully, its terms on the other. Neither party bent to the other's will. Even though it may be appropriate, where there have been lengthy dealings between the parties, to strive to find the existence of some binding contract, an objective assessment of the parties' behaviour here reveals none.

Conclusion

1. The claim is dismissed and the cross-claim is dismissed.
2. The exhibits are to be returned.
3. I will hear the parties as to costs, particularly in light of the fact that both parties' money claims are well within the jurisdiction of the District Court and significantly less than $500,000.

(1) A claimant may suspend the carrying out of construction work (or the supply of related goods and services) under a construction contract if at least 2 business days have passed since the claimant has caused notice of intention to do so to be given to the respondent under section 15, 16 or 24.

(2) The right conferred by subsection (1) exists until the end of the period of 3 business days immediately following the date on which the claimant receives payment for the amount that is payable by the respondent under section 15 (1), 16 (1) or 23 (2).

(2A) If the claimant, in exercising the right to suspend the carrying out of construction work or the supply of related goods and services, incurs any loss or expenses as a result of the removal by the respondent from the contract of any part of the work or supply, the respondent is liable to pay the claimant the amount of any such loss or expenses.

(3) A claimant who suspends construction work (or the supply of related goods and services) in accordance with the right conferred by subsection (1) is not liable for any loss or damage suffered by the respondent, or by any person claiming through the respondent, as a consequence of the claimant not carrying out that work (or not supplying those goods and services) during the period of suspension. 2. The Summons seeks final relief in the form of an order that that Rohrig pay Boss $224,928.88. 3. It is not readily apparent what this expression means.

Amendments 15 April 2019 - Amendment to Legislation Cited 16 April 2019 - Amendment to counsel's surname DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated. Decision last updated: 16 April 2019