- Internal Code :
- Subject Code :
- University :
- Subject Name : Law
Windeyer Barges Ltd Defendant
Summary of The Facts
Formative Outline of Argument
The plaintiff states that he had entered into a contract with the defendant for arranging two new dredges for cleaning the sediment from the South Brisbane city council. As the plaintiff has entered into a contract with the South Brisbane city council for cleaning the sediment in 21 days beginning from 10 June and ending on 30th June. The defendant provided 2 dredges, S.R. Wilson, and S.G. Barwick which were deployed by the plaintiff. At the time of providing these two used dredges, it was assured by the defendant that they were properly serviced. However, after deploying these two vessels S.R. Wilson had the problem on 15th June which resulted in an explosion and ultimately sunk. Another vessel S.G. Barwick had started creating a problem on 18 June and finally exploded on 22nd June and sunk. Thus, before completion of even half of the work as per the agreement signed with the council the vessel stopped functioning exposing the plaintiff for breach of contract signed with the Council.
Final Outline of Argument
It is an admitted fact that the plaintiff has signed an agreement with the South Brisbane city council for cleaning the sediment in the river during the period beginning from 10th June till 30th June 2019. It is also an admitted fact that persons to that contract the plaintiff with an objective to discharge the obligation of the contract signed with the South Brisbane city council entered into a contract with the defendant for providing 2 dredges and by virtue of such contract, the defendant provided two dredges namely S.R. Wilson and S.G. Barwick to the plaintiff although the above two dredges were used one i.e. for 500 hours and 3000 hours respectively it was presented to the plaintiff that they are worthy to carry out the obligation of the plaintiff towards South Brisbane city council. As per the contract, South Brisbane city council had to pay a sum of $30000 as an engagement fee for once and thereafter $10,000 per day per dredges for 21 days and therefore the plaintiff was getting the total amount of $450000. However, the S.R. Wilson could work only for 6 days, and on 15 June 2019, the problem started with technical complications as its electric bilge pump began emitting sparks causing an explosion in the bilge. Further, the engineer of the S.R. Wilson was sitting with the crew of S.G. Barwick and was having a drink, and could not take the emergency measure of turning on the emergency pump and ultimately the S.R. Wilson sunk. It was discovered that from the beginning it had a fault as it was not serviced as per the schedule maintenance but while providing the same dredge the defendant had misrepresented to the plaintiff that it is worthy of the work. Thus, it has worked for only 5 days of fetching revenue of $50,000. Under the circumstances, the plaintiff had to ask the defendant to take twice the work from S.G. Barwick for 16 hours a day instead of 8 hours as to also meet out the work of S.R. Wilson as per the contract with South Brisbane city council. On 18th June 2019, the engine of S.G. Barwick was running at a higher temperature and was vibrating and the same was ignored as a minor issue. But on 20th June 2019, it started working in less capacity and the engineer of the defendant stopped the dredging work. After carrying out the inspection it was found that there are many issues with the S.G. Barwick as its fuel cam, exhaust can, and the camshaft was damaged and for the repair of the same, it will require 4 days’ time and the approximate expenditure of $20,000. Considering the time constraint the CEO of the plaintiff advised that it is not possible for them to keep the work ideal for 4 days and to incur so much of expenses as there is a timeline for completion of the work and the plaintiff has already lost one dredge, S.R. Wilson. On 21st June 2019, when the dredging started after some basic repair the engine was running at 10% less capacity and the work continued with that capacity. However, on 22nd June 2019, due to overheating of the engine, S.G. Barwick was exploded catching fire in the vessel and ultimately getting sunk. Thus 2nd vessel S.G. Barwick could work only for 12 days and fetched the amount of $120000.
Plaintiff’s Submissions
1. The claim of damages for the loss caused by S.R. Wilson to the plaintiff in South Brisbane City Council contract
2. The claim of damages for the loss caused by S.R. Wilson to the plaintiff in Brisbane Development Limited contract
3. The claim of damages for the loss caused by S.G. Barwick to the plaintiff in South Brisbane City Council contract
4. The claim of damages for the loss caused by S.G. Barwick to the plaintiff in Brisbane Port Authority contract.
1.0 The Claim of Damages for The Loss Caused by S.R. Wilson to The Plaintiff in South Brisbane City Council Contract:
As the S.R. Wilson could work only for 5 days i.e. from 10th June to 15 June 2019 and out of the total business of $210000 it could do the business of only $50000, therefore the loss of business comes to $160000 as per the contract signed with the South Brisbane City Council. Out of the above business it was expected that the net profit of $2000 per day would be earned and therefore for 16 days the loss of profit comes to $32,000. Therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to the claim of $30000 from the defendant in respect of the contract between the plaintiff and the defendant for discharging the obligation of another contract signed by the plaintiff with the South Brisbane City Council as the loss resulted naturally from the breach[1].
2.0 The Claim of Damages for The Loss Caused by S.R. Wilson to The Plaintiff in Brisbane Development Limited Contract:
Apart from this, the plaintiff has also signed another agreement with Brisbane Development Limited for a period of 24 months and the same agreement would have earned the plaintiff a net profit of $7500 per month which is totaling to $180000 for 24 months. it was agreed between the plaintiff and the defendant that after carrying out the 21 days' work of South Brisbane City Council the same dredge would be required for Brisbane Development Limited after necessary modification by way of attaching the piledriver in the vessel of S.R. Wilson. It was known to the defendant that the S.R. Wilson is fit for performing another agreement for 24 months and based on such representation the plaintiff was ensured to carry out the agreement with Brisbane Development Limited. It is a settled law that when the defendant is aware of the loss of profits to the plaintiff and in case of breach of contract by the defendant plaintiff is well within its right to claim the same. In the given case the defendant is fully aware of such facts and therefore the defendant cannot escape from the responsibility of compensating for such future losses which are caused to the plaintiff for supplying defective vessels as the defendant has misrepresented about the condition of the dredges and hence defendant will be liable for such misrepresentation[2]. Thus the Plaintiff can claim the damages related to the contractual breach of defendant[3].
- The claim of damages for the loss caused by S.G. Barwick to the plaintiff in South Brisbane City Council contract
As the S.G. Barwick could work only for 12 days i.e. from 10th June to 21st June 2019 and out of the total business of $210000 it could do the business of only $120000. Therefore, the loss of business comes to $90000 as per the contract signed with the South Brisbane City Council. Out of the above business it was expected that the net profit of $2000 per day would be earned and therefore for 9 days the loss of profit comes to $18,000. Therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to the claim of $18000 from the defendant in respect of the contract between the plaintiff and the defendant for discharging the obligation of another contract signed by the plaintiff with the South Brisbane City Council as defendant failed to discharge his contractual obligation[4].
- The claim of damages for the loss caused by S.G. Barwick to the plaintiff in Brisbane Port Authority contract
Apart from this, the plaintiff has also signed another agreement with Brisbane Port Authority for a period of 100 days and the same agreement would have earned the plaintiff a net profit of $2000 per month which is totaling to $200000 for 100 days. It was agreed between the plaintiff and the defendant that after carrying out the 21 days’ work of South Brisbane City Council the same dredge would be required for Brisbane Port Authority. It was known to the defendant that the S.G. Barwick is fit for performing another agreement for 100 days and based on such representation the plaintiff was ensured to carry out the agreement with Brisbane Port Authority. It is a settled law that when the defendant is aware of the loss of profits to the plaintiff and in case of breach of contract by the defendant, the plaintiff is well within its right to claim the same. In the given case the defendant is fully aware of such facts and therefore the defendant cannot escape from the responsibility of compensating for such future losses[5] which is caused to the plaintiff for supplying defective vessels. This proves the loss caused to the plaintiff[6].
Remember, at the center of any academic work, lies clarity and evidence. Should you need further assistance, do look up to our Law Assignment Help