The NSW District Court’s decision in Darren Ryan Sacks v Bouwen Projects Pty Ltd is an instructive judgment on the consequences of departing from contractual specifications in residential construction projects. It addresses recurring issues in building disputes, including informal variations, rectification costs, mitigation of loss and the interaction between contractual and statutory warranties.
Pre-contract discussions do not displace clear contractual specifications
A central dispute concerned whether the builder was entitled to install a waterproofing system different from the product specified in the contract.
The contract incorporated detailed architectural specifications requiring the use of Wolfin “torch-on” waterproofing to flat roofs, slabs and planter boxes. The builder contended that, prior to the contract being signed, the owners had agreed to use a cheaper alternative system.
The Court rejected this argument for several reasons:
- The contract contained an entire agreement clause, expressly stating that the written contract was not affected by prior negotiations or discussions.
- The alleged agreement relied entirely on oral recollections, unsupported by contemporaneous documentation.
- The relevant specification required owner approval for any alternative system, which the Court held must occur after the contract was entered into, not beforehand.
- Extrinsic evidence of pre-contract negotiations cannot be used to contradict or vary the express terms of a written building contract (also known as the parol evidence rule).
Practical implications
- Builders should not assume that early discussions or “in-principle” conversations permit departure from written specifications. If they intend to rely earlier discussions to depart from the contract, then entire agreement clauses should be carefully reconsidered or removed from their contracts.
- Any agreed change to materials or systems should be documented as a formal contractual variation.
Rectification remains the primary measure of damages for defective work
The Court reaffirmed orthodox principles governing damages in building cases, particularly those set out in Bellgrove v Eldridge and reaffirmed in Tabcorp Ltd v Bowen Investments Pty Ltd.
Where building work does not conform to the contract, the owner is entitled to the reasonable cost of rectification required to achieve contractual compliance. This remains so even if:
- the building is functional,
- the non-conforming work has not yet catastrophically failed, or
- the rectification cost exceeds any immediate diminution in market value.
In this case, the builder argued that removing and replacing the existing waterproofing was disproportionate and economically wasteful. The Court rejected that submission, finding that:
- the specified Wolfin system was a premium product selected for performance and durability,
- the alternative membrane used was not equivalent and, in some locations, was not fit for purpose, and
- water ingress had already occurred.
Rectification to bring the works into conformity with the contract was therefore both necessary and reasonable.
Practical implications
- Builders who substitute cheaper or non-specified products risk exposure to full replacement costs.
- Courts will not readily accept arguments that rectification is “overkill” where contractual compliance has not been achieved.
- Owners are generally entitled to what they bargained for, not a lesser substitute.
Refusing access does not automatically amount to a failure to mitigate
The builder argued that the owners failed to mitigate their loss by refusing to allow the builder back on site to rectify defects.
The Court rejected this submission, emphasising that mitigation must be assessed in context. Relevant considerations included:
- the history and seriousness of the defects,
- the extent to which trust in the builder had been eroded,
- whether the builder had provided a clear, competent and comprehensive rectification proposal, and
- whether further access would realistically reduce the owners’ loss.
On the evidence, the owners’ refusal of access was reasonable and did not disentitle them to damages.
Practical implications
- Owners are not obliged to accept repeated or speculative rectification attempts.
- Builders cannot rely on a bare offer to return to site as a shield against damages.
- Clear, timely and credible rectification proposals are critical if builders wish to rely on mitigation arguments.
Express contractual warranties can extend liability beyond statutory limits
The builder relied on limitation periods under the Home Building Act 1989 (NSW) in relation to certain minor defects.
The Court held that this defence failed because the contract (separate to the HBA) contained express warranties mirroring and in some respects expanding upon, the HBA warranties. Those express contractual warranties constituted independent contractual promises.
As a result:
- claims for breach of those contractual warranties were governed by ordinary contractual limitation principles, not the statutory warranty time limits, and
- the owners’ claims were not out of time.
Practical implications
- Builders should carefully consider the long-term consequences of including express warranties in contracts. If unsure whether the express warranties are included in the contract separately to the HBA, they should have their contracts reviewed.
- Owners may have enforceable contractual rights even where statutory warranty periods have expired
Conclusion
Sacks v Bouwen Projects is a strong reaffirmation of fundamental construction law principles. It underscores that:
- written specifications are enforceable,
- informal agreements carry little weight without proper documentation,
- rectification is the default remedy for defective work, and
- mitigation and limitation arguments require careful factual and legal foundation.
This communication is sent by Kreisson Legal Pty Limited (ACN 113 986 824). This communication has been prepared for the general information of clients and professional associates of Kreisson Legal. You should not rely on the contents. It is not legal advice and should not be regarded as a substitute for legal advice. The contents may contain copyright.
