Treacy v Dwyer Nolan Developments Ltd
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judge | Mr. Justice McWilliam |
| Judgment Date | 31 October 1979 |
| Neutral Citation | 1978 WJSC-HC 3908 |
| Court | High Court |
| Date | 31 October 1979 |
| Docket Number | No. 4644 P./1978 |
1978 WJSC-HC 3908
Judgment of Mr. Justice McWilliam delivered this 31st day of October, 1979.
This is an action for specific performance of a contract by the Defendant to build a house for the Plaintiff and sell it to him.
Although the defence denies everything most comprehensively, including the agreement to build and sell the house, the issue at the hearing concerned only the question of when the house was properly completed and the liability of the Plaintiff to pay interest at the rate of 20% from two weeks after the date when the house was ready for occupation, on any of the purchase price then outstanding until payment, as provided by the contract.
The agreement was in writing and was dated 6th September, 1977. It provided that the Defendant would try to have the house completed by 29th September but would not be liable for any delay. It also provided that, if any dispute should arise with regard to any matter concerning the progress or completion of the work, the same should be referred by either party, with notice in writing to the other, to the Defendant's architect whose decision should be final and binding.
In the event, the Defendant informed the Plaintiff that the house had been completed on 27th October, 1977.
The Plaintiff alleged that the house had not been completed in accordance with the contract and, by letter of 27th November, 1977, a list of defects was furnished to the solicitor for the Defendant. This list, or a similar one, had already been furnished by the Plaintiff personally at an earlier date.
Early in December the Defendant notified the Plaintiff that all defects had been remedied.
Up to this date no difficulty arises in the case. The Defendant accepts that there were defects but claims that they were not of a serious nature. I am satisfied from the evidence that this claim is correct. The Defendant also alleges that all defects had been remedied by early December.
Sometime in the middle of December the Plaintiff attended at the premises with a qualified person, whether a relative or a friend of a relative of the Plaintiff is not clear to me, and some sort of inspection of the premises was carried out on his behalf.
From then onwards the correspondence seems to have proceeded on parallel lines, not meeting at any point. The Plaintiff claiming that the house was defective and that he required an inspection before he would complete, and the Defendant claiming that the house was fully completed and that interest on the purchase price at the full rate of 20% was payable from November. So the correspondence went on. The Plaintiff did not ask for a definite appointment to inspect the premises although he complained that he was being prevented from inspecting them, and he did not send a list of his complaints supported by a report from his qualified adviser. The Defendant did not...
To continue reading
Request your trial