McCallum and Anor Trading As ABAC Homes and Construction v Tranquillity Homes Canberra Pty Ltd ACN 160 753 088 (Civil Dispute)

McCallum and Anor, trading as ABAC Homes and Construction, filed a civil dispute against Tranquillity Homes Canberra Pty Ltd ACN 160 753 088 in the context of an oral contract for bulk excavation services. The dispute arose from unpaid invoices, with ABAC Homes and Construction claiming $5,782 for work done, along with additional fees for ACAT filing and ASIC search. Tranquillity Homes Canberra counterclaimed for costs related to the rectification of alleged defects, asserting that the excavation work was not performed to the required standards. The Tribunal was tasked with determining the validity of the oral agreement, the scope of work agreed upon, and the quality of the services rendered.

The central legal issues involved the enforceability of an oral contract and the extent to which the services provided met the agreed specifications. The Tribunal needed to establish whether the terms of the agreement were clear and whether the variations, if any, were approved in writing as required by the contract. Additionally, the Tribunal had to assess the evidence regarding the quality of the excavation work and determine whether Tranquillity Homes Canberra's counterclaim for rectification costs was justified.

The Tribunal found that the oral agreement between the parties was valid and binding. It determined that the scope of work and the terms were sufficiently clear to be enforceable. The Tribunal rejected the argument that the work was not performed to the required standards, noting that there was no evidence to support the claim that Tranquillity Homes Canberra's counterclaim for rectification costs was valid. Consequently, the Tribunal ordered that Tranquillity Homes Canberra pay ABAC Homes and Construction the sum of $6,426.94, which included the amount for work done, additional fees, and interest. The Tribunal dismissed Tranquillity Homes Canberra's counterclaim, concluding that there was no basis to support their claim for rectification costs.