A separate contract was also entered into between the parties for the ongoing maintenance of the equipment.
Proceedings were conducted in the Supreme Court of Queensland, where claims exceeding $2.5 million were made for breach of contract and also under the Trade Practices Act. The claims included alleged pure economic loss that the customer claimed it suffered as a result of lost production due to its inability to perform its dig and haul obligations.
Extensive and complex claims and counterclaims were made which called in to question:
- the construction and terms of the contracts – that were not wholly contained in writing and included oral terms
- the nature and effect of representations made during the course of pre-contractual negotiations
- the parties conduct and compliance with their respective obligations and
- whether the equipment as commissioned by the client met specific site requirements
In the course of the matter, we successfully opposed an application for separate issue determination, were successful in obtaining a security for costs order against the subsidiary of a publicly listed company and ultimately negotiated a successful resolution at mediation.
ALSO READ: Ownership Dispute Over Abandoned Chattels
