Forte Sydney Construction Pty Ltd v N Moit and Sons (NSW) Pty Ltd

Forte Sydney Construction Pty Ltd brought a claim against N Moit and Sons (NSW) Pty Ltd seeking to enforce a contract for the construction of a hotel. The dispute centred on whether a binding contract had been formed between the parties and, if so, the extent of the defendant's liability under the agreement. The case was heard and determined by the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The central legal issues were whether there was an objective indication of acceptance of an offer by the plaintiff, and if the defendant's conduct implied acceptance despite the absence of a formal agreement. The court also considered whether the defendant's conduct constituted acceptance of the plaintiff's tender and whether the subcontract proposed by the defendant formed part of the contract between the parties. Furthermore, the court examined the effect of variations and deductions made by the defendant in relation to the contract and the plaintiff's entitlement to an extension of time.

The court held that there was no concluded bargain between the parties. The plaintiff's offer was not accepted by the defendant as the defendant's conduct did not objectively indicate acceptance of the plaintiff's tender. The subcontract proposed by the defendant was not accepted by the plaintiff and therefore did not form part of the contract. The court also found that the defendant was not liable for variations and deductions made in relation to the contract and that the plaintiff was not entitled to an extension of time. Consequently, the court dismissed the plaintiff's claim and the cross-claim made by the defendant. The court ordered the plaintiff to pay the defendant's costs of the proceedings and granted leave for the plaintiff to approach the Associate for a date for submissions regarding any application for a different costs order arising from any settlement offers made.

The final orders were that judgment be entered in favour of the defendant on the plaintiff's claim and the cross-claim, that the plaintiff pay the defendant's costs, and that leave be granted for the plaintiff to apply for a different costs order if any settlement offers were made.