Read the recent tribunal case Taylor v Archicentre Ltd (General) [2012] NSWCTTT 348
(a) Provide a summary account of the key material facts concerning the architectural services contract, its delivery and 'completion'.
(b) Was the applicant's claim out of time?
(c) As a hypothetical variation on the actual facts, assume instead that due to unhappy relations between the respondent and its subcontractor Ms Seymour, only (a) and (c) services had been provided. The respondent by letter dated 24 February 2009, then advised the applicant that since despite its best endeavours, it wasn't able to provide the remaining (b),(d)-(g) services, it was terminating the remainder of the contract forthwith. But that Taylor wasn't eligible for a refund as the contract had been under costed in the first instance - which Taylor ought to have been aware of. Assume further that: (i) Taylor - having little choice - accepted the respondent's termination and promptly found a well-respected architectural firm, to provide the remaining (b),(d-(g) services at a cost of $2,336 and (ii) the original (a)-(g) service contract was perfectly divisible in seven equal $233.57 cost components.
Required:
Advise the applicant, whether, in these circumstances, he can recover $1,167.85 on a quantum meruit from the respondent plus the $2,336 cost of substitute (b),(d)-(g) services?