Customer refusing to pay for work

[Yodel]

Mr Yodel agreed a price with a customer for a bathroom refit. Work commenced, but there was a disagreement over some minor detail with the result that the customer told Mr Y to stop the work. Despite Mr Y offering an alternative solution to the problem, the customer didn't want him to continue. The job was 70% complete and we invoiced the customer accordingly. However, the customer has said he will not pay anything until work has been completed by another contractor, and even then he says he will only pay a portion of the amount owed (he is only prepared to pay the price originally agreed less whatever his new contractor charges). This seems very unfair as the work that was completed was done in good faith, and the invoice is 70% of the original price agreed. Do we have a good case for the small claims court?

[Gmcd01]

That would depend on which side you're arguing from...trick is, if the answer wasn't arguable either way, it wouldn't have been given to you. I don't really like answering academic moots or coursework, which is exactly as this reads, but as a starting point, research: Cutter v Powell [1795], Planche v Colburn [1831], Sumpter v Hedges [1989] and Hoenigs v Isaacs [1952]. These are well known contract cases at the peak of the industrial revolution and could be found in any decent contract textbook or caselaw webiste (If you have access, LexisNexis or Westlaw)

[Yodel]

Thanks Gmcd01 but I'm not a law student and have no knowledge of law at all. This is my real life husband and his real life business. I must have expressed myself in a very dry way if I sound like a text book, sorry I was just trying to put it as clearly as possible....Yodel

[Gmcd01]

In that case, have my apologies :-). The honest answer is no, you don't have a strong case. The basic precept is that the contract must have been substantially completed. This does not mean 99% or something, it means 100% complete with minor defects. The remedy for such is then contract price awarded, minus the cost of altering the defects. What is substantial is a matter of fact dependant on the contract type, what the defect is (E.g 90% complete of a boat is mathematically substantial, but the 10% might be the missing hull, which is the essence). However, you should seek to further your claim on the precept of Planche v Colburn [1832] whereby it states that where one party prevents fulfilment of the contract, the other party may claim in relation to work already done, as here. The reason I state that your case is shaky is because I don't know the original dispute; if it was caused by your husband, then the courts would take a dimmer view of who is actually preventing the contract's continuance. What was the original dispute over, if I might ask? Also, do you have proof of the agreement, something to the effect in writing?

[Yodel]

The disagreement came about because there was some minor electrical work to be done but Mr Y is not Part P qualified. He offered the services of a colleague who is NIC registered to inspect this part of the work, but the customer refused the offer.
Regarding confirmation in writing, all we have is the original quotation, and the confirmation letter sent to the customer to confirm the booking. Nothing signed by the customer I'm afraid.

[Gmcd01]

Right OK, I shouldn't think that the existence of the contract should be disputed, as Mr Y was actually working in the house. The main question that arises was whether the agreement stipulated, or whether Mr Y or the contractee knew, at the time, that the contract would require some skill he did not (In the qualifications sense only) possess. If the signatory knew, then the argument arises that he knew what he was signing (Non Est Factum, meaning its not my deed) does not apply, and he should be bound by his signature (L'Estrange v Graucib [1932]) under the principle of caveat emptor, le the 'buyer' beware. If he knew what the state of the agreement was, he shall be blocking performance. However, if he did not know of the electrical situation, then the courts may equitably find that he has a legitimate concern, although this is hard to base on the fact he won't allow your contact to help. Perhaps not charging him for the electrician's work, if that's commercially aviable and practical...although I'm not an arbitrator...

[Yodel]

Thanks for your helpful advice Gmcd01. We are pretty sure that the customer was aware of the situation regarding the electrical work, although I am sure he would state otherwise. From the beginning he has been trying to find ways to cut costs, so it's probably just an excuse to reduce the price. I suppose we just have to wait and see how much he offers in payment. He has not made any complaint about the non-electrical work already completed, so if he has any kind of conscience hopefully he will pay the full amount owing. Thanks again. Mrs Y.

[themas]

Did your husband know when he quoted that electrical work was involved? If so, did he know that (as it is in a bathroom) it would have to be Part P certified? If he did know these things then presumably he always intended to get someone to certify it. If this is the case, I don't understand how the dispute arose.

Or was the electrical work a variation requested by the customer after the quote was done? If so, then he seems to be in the wrong to stop the non-electrical work because of a disagreement about who does or certifies the elcetrical work.

Or was your husband unaware of the Part P requirement and had it pointed out to him by the customer? In this case the customer might have a bit of justification on his side, but it still seems pretty harsh to stop all the work.

Whatever the situation, if it goes to Court you will have to set it out fully.

[Gmcd01]

No worries. Let me know how it goes, would be interesting to see how this is clarified!

[Yodel]

Thanks for your input Themas. My husband is competent based on years of experience to carry out the electrical work (fitting halogen lights), but under the new part P legislation he is not qualified to certify (he's actually booked on an assessment for this in May as it happens). I agree his intention to carry out the work was therefore wrong. but does that mean that the customer may now avoid paying for rest of the building, plumbing, tiling, plastering and carpentry that has already been done to his satisfaction?

[themas]

I see now how the dispute arose. I can sympathise with your husband because I think a lot of skilled and experienced people have perhaps been disadvantaged by the new regulations.

The customer's reaction seems to me to be unreasonable, particularly as he had the offer to have the electrical work certified, which is one of the options the regulations allow for.

If it does end up in Court, your husband will need to provide proof of what he offered, and the electrician concerned may have to give evidence to support him. I hope it doesn't get that far.