Ross et Al v Sirotek Construction Ltd

• Jurisdiction: Saint Kitts and Nevis
• Court: High Court (Saint Kitts and Nevis)
• Judge: Glasgow, J.
• Judgment Date: 01 January 1970
• Neutral Citation: KN 1970 HC 2
• Docket Number: No. 15 of 1970
• Date: 01 January 1970

High Court

Glasgow, J.

No. 15 of 1970

Ross et al

and

Sirotek Construction Ltd.

Appearances:

Dr. W. V. Herbert and D. Byron for the plaintiff.

M. Davis, Q.C. and F.C. Adams for the defendant.

Contract - Breach — Building contract — Quantum of damages.

Facts: The plaintiff was a building contractor in St. Kitts and the defendant a limited liability company in the Bahamas. The issue was whether the defendant company was in breach of a building contract. There was a finding that the actions of the defendant company prevented the plaintiff from completing the contract.

Held: The plaintiff was entitled to the difference between the value of the work he actually did and the money he actually received, together with such sum as would represent his profit if he had been able to complete the work. Judgment for the plaintiff.

Glasgow, J.

1 The plaintiff is a building contractor carrying on business as such in the name of Ross & Clarke. The plaintiff's place of business is at Central Street in the town of Basseterre in the island of St. Christopher. The defendant is a limited liability company incorporated to do business as general contractors and having its head office in Nassau, Bahamas, and its usual place of business at El Toro Building, Black Rock, St. Michael, Barbados.

2 The plaintiff claims against the defendant the sum of $21,432.00 alleged to be the balance due to the plaintiff on a contract made between the plaintiff and the defendant at St. Kitts in or about the month of September 1969. In the alternative the plaintiff claims from the defendant damages for breach of contract. In the further alternative the plaintiff claims on quantum meruit the value of work and services rendered to the defendant at the request of the defendant in the erection of the University Centre in Basseterre.

3 The defendant denies that it is indebted to the plaintiff. The defendant alleges that the plaintiff has been overpaid in the sum of $234.28 and claims the return of this sum from the plaintiff. The defendant further alleges that the plaintiff was in breach of contract in failing to complete the said building in accordance with the terms of the contract or at all, and the defendant also claims damages from the plaintiff.

4 The facts, as I find them, are as follows: After preliminary oral discussions had taken place between the plaintiff and representatives of the defendant Company, the plaintiff and the defendant Company entered into a written agreement headed “Purchase Order-sub Contract” dated 9th October, 1969. The plaintiff was required by the said agreement to build the University Centre in Basseterre for the sum of $34,000 and “to supply all labour and material, equipment and services as required by the plans and specifications prepared by Edmonton Consulting Associates of Alberta, Canada, with the exception of the supply of materials as per schedule “A” attached to the said agreement. The materials were to be provided to the plaintiff free of charge cif dock St. Kitts. Schedule ‘A’ showed clearly that the materials which were to be provided to the plaintiff free of charge were to come from Canada. The said agreement also contained the said provision: “Completion of the contract is scheduled for May 9, 1970. Refer all questions arising out of this contract to our Barbados Office telephone 03031, cable SIROCON BARBADOS”.

5 Even before the parties entered into the said agreement, Frederic Sirotek, the President of the defendant company, told the plaintiff in the course of the preliminary discussion, that the cement blocks which were to form the walls of the proposed building, were to be laid in stacked bond pattern. The plaintiff showed Mr. Sirotek some blocks made by a local firm, and told him that those blocks, which were typical of others available locally, were irregular and not suitable for stacked bond pattern work. Nevertheless, it was agreed that the local blocks could be used, and in due course the plaintiff erected in stacked bond pattern, to the entire satisfaction of the defendant Company, a portion of two walls in the library of the University Centre.

6 In January 1970 Mr. Sirotek came to St. Kitts and found fault with the manner in which the laying of the blocks was being continued. In fact the standard of block-laying had deteriorated, and it was agreed that the blocks should he plastered over instead of being left unplastered as required by the drawings.

7 On the 19th October 1969, the plaintiff had the footings for the foundations of the buildings cast. The next step was to cast the foundations. In order to have this done, the plaintiff required certain bolts to hold down the building. It was the duty of the defendant Company to supply the bolts in due time. The bolts arrived on the 26th October, 1969. Between the 19th and the 26th October, 1969 very little work was done on or in connection with the building. However, the plaintiff retained his full force of workmen for fear of losing their services. By the 15th Novembers 1969 the plaintiff had completed the casting of the foundation and the erection of the steel structure. The next thing the plaintiff wanted to do was to lay the damp-proofing prior to laying the blocks. On the 15th Novembers 1969 the plaintiff had a telephone conversation with Mr. Sirotek. A letter dated the 15th November, 1969, later reached the plaintiff. It was signed by Mr. Sirotek on behalf of the defendant Company. The letter reads as follows:

“Dear Mr. Ross,

Further to our conversation of November 15, 1969 this is to authorize you to purchase wire mesh and polyethylene on our behalf in order to proceed with the floor placing.

Our electrical contractor advises that he will be in St. Kitts on Thursday, November 20th or the next day.”

8 On the 25th November, 1969 the plaintiff received a telegram in the following terms from the defendant Company:

“Notwithstanding electrical work not in place proceed with concrete floor”.

9 Up to that date—25th November—the electrical contractors had not arrived. Between the 15th and the 21st November, 1969 the plaintiff had 15 workmen employed on the jobs and for the week which ended on the 28th November, 1969 the plaintiff had 22 men employed. The workmen were being paid full wages for doing little or nothing for the period 15 ^th to 25th November, 1969.

10 The plaintiff's workmen started casting the concrete floor with the exception of the northern sector which contained the plumbing. Shortly afterwards the plaintiff received from the defendant Company a letter dated 27th November, 1969, By this letter the plaintiff was informed that the defendant Company was enclosing a sketch indicating the plumbing layout which reflects the change from two-pipe to one-pipe system. The plaintiff was also informed that he should contact the defendant Company's Office when he was ready to start the installation and that the defendant Company's Mr. Frank Roberts would come up to discuss the installation with the plaintiff's plumber. The northern sector of the floor was cast after Mr. Roberts arrived and checked the joints. Work on the floor was completed by the plaintiff on the 5 ^th December, 1969.

11 Later in December, 1969 the plaintiff was ready to proceed with the construction of the roof. The materials for the roof arrived and Mr. Sirotek instructed the plaintiff to proceed with the construction of the roof. Shortly afterwards, however, the plaintiff received a letter from Mr. Sirotek, countermanding his previous instructions on the ground that the materials for the roof were not up to the standard required by the specifications. By this time the plaintiff was very angry indeed, and on 8th January, 1970 he wrote a letter to the defendant Company in which he gave vent to his feelings. The plaintiff complained that the Architects and Engineers had come and required certain omissions and changes of things that had been agreed upon. He wanted to know how he would be compensated for the delay caused while he was waiting for them to decide what type of roof decking or cladding they would use. The plaintiff's said letter reads, in part, as follows: –

“The materials was suppose to come in a certain order so that we could use the building when the roof is on in order to accommodate materials such as doors and hard-ware fittings. We now have to find a warehouse to...