CASENOTES CODELFA CONSTRUCTION v STATE RAIL AUTHORITY * Can an implied term be applied and the Doctrine of Frustration?

FACTS y y y y Commissioner for railways called for tenders for the construction of parts of railway in Sydney Codelfa tendered Construction was authorised by City and Suburban Electric Railways Section 11 of the contract stipulates that µnotwithstanding s 11¶ no injunction shall be granted for nuisance, noise or blasting or rocks while carried out for the purposes of construction work The contract also stipulated that the contractor was to inform the engineer of any delay or default in work within ten days... Injunctions were granted against Codelfa which restrained performance and restricted work between 10 pm and 6 am each day including Sunday¶s and three shifts per week. ACTION SO FAR... Codelfa claimed from commissioner additional costs it had incurred as a result of profit lost from the injunction in which Codelfa was constrained to adopt. Claim was put on alternative options: 1. Warranty should be implied in the contract for breach to allow damages to be recovered or 2. Doctrine of Frustration applied to contract Commissioner resisted claims Dispute submitted to Arbitration ISSUES

y y

y y

y y

Master your semester with Scribd & The New York Times

Special offer for students: Only $4.99/month.

Master your semester with Scribd & The New York Times

Cancel anytime.