Hatmet submitted a price for installing ceilings to lifts. The price was based upon a mock-up that had been installed. A purchase order was issued for the supply and installation based upon the submitted price. The Architect then issued a plan, which would lead to a revised price. Herbert, by email, told the Claimant to carry out the work in accordance with the drawing. Herbert then refused to pay based upon the revised price.

The matter was referred to adjudication and the Adjudicator found in the Claimant’s favour.

The Defendant argued that there had been no “agreement in writing” under Sections 107(2)(b) or 107(2)(c) of the HGCRA, based upon the argument that there was no agreed price.

HHJ Kirkham held that Section 15 of the Sale of Goods and Services Act, requiring that a party will pay a reasonable charge, provided a mechanism for the calculation of a sufficiently certain price. There was, therefore, an implied mechanism for calculating the revised price to the purchase order. The Adjudicator therefore had jurisdiction and the decision should be enforced.

Many thanks to the editors of BLISS for kindly providing their permission to reproduce this case summary on our website