Introduction - Building Contract Claims - page 8

between the grant or refusal of an extension of time and the success of a
contractor's application for direct loss and/or expense 12 .
Generally speaking, unexpected difficulty or expense in completing the
contract does not entitle the contractor to refuse to carry out the work or to
claim additional payment. This statement is well illustrated by Davis Con-
tractors Ltd v. Fareham Urban District Council 13 .
The claimants agreed with the Fareham Council to build for them 78
council houses within a period of 8 months for a firm price. There was a
shortage of skilled labour, and the work of erecting the houses took 22
months to complete as a result. The contractors claimed that by reason of
the scarcity of labour the contract had been frustrated and that they were
entitled to recover a sum in excess of the contract price on the basis of a
quantum meruit .
The House of Lords found against the contractors. An unexpected turn of
events that renders the performance of a contract more onerous than the
parties contemplated does not release the party adversely affected from the
contract. Here, the scarcity of labour, which was not due to the fault of either
party, was not sufficient to justify a finding that the contract had been
brought to an end when the expectations of the parties were not realised.
Accordingly, the contractors had not been released from the terms of the
contract as regards price and could not maintain a claim for payment on a
quantum meruit .
In the Court of Appeal - which also ruled against the contractors -
Denning LJ, as he then was, put the matter in a nutshell when he said:
'We could seriously damage the sanctity of contracts if we allowed a
builder to charge more, simply because, without anyone's fault, the work
took him much longer than he thought.' 14
The Davis case may be contrasted with the Parkinson case quoted earlier in
this chapter.
1.4 Architect's and contract administrator's powers and liability
to the contractor
Most of the comments in this section will apply whether the contract
administrator is an architect or some other construction professional. How-
ever, to avoid undue complication, reference is made only to the architect.
Under JCT contracts the architect's powers are limited. For example, JCT 98,
clause 4.1.1, obliges the contractor to comply only with instructions 'ex-
pressly empowered by the Conditions', and a later sub-clause provides a
method whereby the contractor may challenge the architect's authority to
issue a particular instruction. In a claims situation, the architect can certify
12 H. Fairweather & Co Ltd v. London Borough of Wandsworth (1987) 39 BLR 106. See in particular p. 120.
13 [1956] 2 All ER 148 HL.
14 Davis Contractors Ltd v. Fareham Urban District Council [1955] 1 All ER 275 at 278 CA.