You are on page 1of 3

Darryl Carpenay (100312446) University of Ontario Institute of Technology Faculty of Engineering and Applied Science Darryl Carpenay (1 !


E&'( #)$ U ET*ICS+ ,A- A&D .(OFESSIO&A,IS/ FO( E&'I&EE(S

ASSI'&/E&T T-O DUE via -e01CT O&,2 3 /A( 14+ 1"5


A software company entered into a contract to build a web site for a large o!ernment of Canada Department in "ttawa# $%e site was to contain 2&0 interacti!e pages written in '()# Alas* it was two years ago w%en t%e "ttawa +$ mar,et was red-%ot# $%e company could only complete &0 by t%e end of t%e contract and abandoned t%e pro.ect* claiming t%at it was impossible to find enoug% /ualified '() programmers to complete t%e wor,# $%ey emp%asi0ed t%at it %ad ne!er contemplated t%e acute labour s%ortage w%en t%ey signed t%e contract wit% t%e Department# $%e company claimed t%at t%e contract %ad been frustrated# 1as t%e company .ustified* from a legal point of !iew* in abandoning t%e pro.ect2 34plain wit% appropriate legal references# 5irst of all* disc%arge by frustration is w%en a contract comes to an end due to t%e following criteria being satisfied* an unforeseeable e!ent %appens* w%ere t%ere is no fault of eit%er party* some e!ent occurs ma,ing performance impossible* and if t%e purpose of t%e contract is not followed correctly# $%e court would rule 6too bad7 because a contract was signed and t%ey must fulfill t%eir side of t%e contract once t%is is done# $%e company is at fault t%ey s%ould %a!e researc%ed and determined w%et%er or not t%ey %ad or could find more '() programmers before signing t%e contract# 8imilar to t%e case of +mperial lass !s# Con 8upplies 1960 :CCA# According to (ar,land !s# )o%nes e!en in t%e absence of e4press terms building contracts must %a!e at least t%e following; -(aterials and wor,mans%ip be of proper /uality -1or, carried out properly -1ill fit t%e purposes intended -Done in reasonable time -1it%out undue delay 1it% t%at being said some of t%ese factors were not met t%e materials and wor,mans%ip was not of proper /uality# As t%ey were suppose to %a!e 2&0 interacti!e pages written in '() and t%ey %ad only completed &0 by t%e end of t%e contract# $%is also ties in to t%e wor, not being carried out properly and efficiently# $%erefore t%e contract was not met and will not fit t%e purposes intended# $%e company %ad not e!en completed t%e assigned pro.ect as t%e pages were insufficient# 8o it was not done at all w%ic% corresponds to t%e tas, not being done on time and wit% delays#

ect# $%is must %a!e lead to bot% direct and indirect damages and losses for t%e large o!ernment of Canada Department in "ttawa# +n addition* t%e software company s%ould %a!e followed t%e compliance wit% notice pro!isions principles# $%at states 6if t%ere are delays* t%e contractor must notify t%e owner in writing as soon as t%ey are seen wit%in (30 days)#7 $%ere are numerous legal cases w%ic% %a!e in!ol!ed t%is rule suc% as Corpe4 !# Canada w%ere t%e Crown did not pro!ide accurate information# Alt%oug% Corpe4 waited until t%e end of t%e contract and suedA Corpe4 lost due to t%e principle of t%e notice of 30 days pro!ision# Anot%er e4ample of t%is is t%e case of Doyle !# Carling ".ust t%e conditions made t%e contract more onerous t%an contemplated# 1%en a company enters a contract t%ey need to up%old t%ere side of t%e deal w%ic% t%is company %ad clearly failed to do as a matter of fact t%ey %a!e yet to complete t%e assigned wor.# 5urt%ermore* as stated wit%in t%e lecture on t%e topic 6#1#& Contract Administration eac% party ensures t%at bot% sides will meet t%eir contractual obligations# +n t%is case we can see t%at t%is was not maintained t%e company did not complete t%eir side of t%e deal as t%ey %ad only finis%ed &0 pages and t%ey were to complete 2&0 pages# $%e only way t%at t%e software company can win t%is case is if t%ey directly relate bac. because men were needed in t%e reat 1ar# $%is is a correct e4ample of disc%arge by frustration# As we can see t%is is not t%e same sort of situation in t%e case we are dealing wit%# 5or t%e case of 8wanson !# (anitoba it lead to wor.e# <owe!er* + do not belie!e t%is is a fair statement to ma.ob as t%e "ttawa +$ mar.Darryl Carpenay (100312446) $%is case is !ery similar to t%e case of Da!is !s# 5are%am w%ere t%e <ouse of )ords refused to accept frustration as well* .e and t%at affects a fundamental term of t%e contract7# (eaning t%at t%ey can claim t%ey signed t%is contract by was red-%ot .ect and t%is s%ould be reflected in t%e bid price# 1e can relate t%is somew%at to our case since bot% in!ol!ed delays alt%oug% in our case t%e delay is permanent as t%e .eefe (:CCA 19CC) w%ere t%ere were claimed 6impact costs7 due to delays* interference* and c%anges of wor.ob was not e!en completed# $%erefore* + belie!e it would definitely be ruled against t%e software company especially since t%ey did signBenter t%e contract# 5urt%ermore* t%ey breac%ed t%e contract because t%e mandatory condition of t%e contract was t%e site was to contain 2&0 interacti!e pages written in '()# $%e software company breac%ed t%is contract since t%ey only completed &0 at t%e end of t%e contract and t%en abandoned t%e pro. to t%is principle 6An offeree cannot accept an offer t%at %e .e actions as soon as t%e problem occurs# :ot% of t%ese cases relate to our problem since t%e software company did not notify t%e large o!ernment of Canada Department in "ttawa until t%e end of t%e contract# $%ey s%ould %a!e approac%ed t%e large o!ernment of .nows %as been made by mista. %a!ing to be done in t%e winter mont%s since t%e site was not prepared for t%e summer period w%ic% was planned for# $%ey attempted to argue frustration for t%is case but lost because some delay s%ould be e4pected in a construction pro.ust about 2 years ago# "t%er cases t%at in!ol!ed disc%arge by frustration are (etropolitan 1ater !# Dic.* =err (191>) (?es) and 8wanson !# (anitoba (@o)# Alt%oug% t%ese cases are not as related to t%is particular caseA t%e (etropolitan 1ater !# Dic.e as t%ey willingly signed t%e contract and according to t%e /uestion belie!ed t%ey could complete t%e .* =err (191>) in!ol!ed a contract of 6 years w%ic% began in 1914# <owe!er* in 1916* t%e (inistry of (unitions stops t%e wor. orders# Alt%oug% t%ey waited until t%e end of t%e contract to sue and t%erefore did not pre!ailA you must ta.

ect on time# Deferences.ect considering t%ey did not e!en come close to completing t%e pro. o!ertime so t%ey could finis% t%e pro.ect and clearly did not spend enoug% time on t%e was red-%ot only 2 years ago so t%e company s%ould %a!e been able to find sufficient labor# $%e software company could %a!e also %ad t%eir employees wor.ect# As stated in t%e /uestion t%e +$ mar.ob done# +n conclusion* + belie!e t%e software company is at fault since it was possible to perform t%e duty of t%e contract but t%ey failed to do so# $%erefore* t%e software company was at fault and not .ustified from a legal point of !iew# $%ey signed t%e contract and started t%e pro. )ectures from 3@ D-4>60E F 3t%ics* )aw and Grofessionalism for 3ngineers by Dr# :ennett# .Darryl Carpenay (100312446) Canada Department in "ttawa earlier wit%in 30 days or as soon as t%e problem was reac%ed and t%ey reali0ed t%ey could not find enoug% /ualified '() programmers to get t%e .