ABSTRACT
There are three main elements to this rather complicated problem, relating to the three different contracts. All raise issues of quasi-contract, or restitution. The matters for consideration are: • can the University recover the deposit paid to Shark on the basis of a total
failure of consideration (as in the Fibrosa case)? If not, can it recover the £900 overpayment, as money paid under a mistake of fact (Kelly v Solari)?;
• can Crush recover any compensation for the work it has done in clearing the site, on a quantum meruit basis (BSC v Cleveland Bridge and Engineering Co Ltd)?; and
In January 2002, Exmouth University acquired a large site, containing a derelict factory, on which it proposed to build a new hall of residence. In connection with this project, it took the following steps:
(a) it engaged a firm of architects, Shark & Co, to draw up plans for the new building. The contract price was to be £12,000, with a deposit of 7.5% payable immediately. Dim, the University’s finance officer, incorrectly calculated the deposit as £1,800 instead of £900 and paid the larger amount to Shark;
(b) it offered the job of clearing the site to tender. The lowest tender (£28,000) was received from Crush & Co, and the University decided to contract with it. Negotiations on the details of the contract were slow, but in the meantime the University allowed Crush onto the site to start work; and
(c) it bought 20,000 used bricks from Facers Ltd, at a price of £20,000. Several hundred of the bricks were used immediately to repair buildings on the University’s main site. The rest were to be used for the warden’s accommodation at the new hall.
