Alebrahim v BM Design London Ltd

A contract for interior design services is construed according to its own terms. Where the contract provides for estimates to be accepted before becoming binding, an accepted estimate generally fixes the price, subject to contractual provisions permitting variation. Work undertaken without an accepted estimate may be recoverable only on a quantum meruit basis.

The statutory implied term of reasonable skill and care does not, without more, impose wider obligations such as a duty to act in good faith, verify underlying costs, obtain further approvals or manage building works outside the agreed scope. A claim for loss of use requires evidence establishing both breach and the period and use said to have been lost.

The claimant engaged the defendant, an interior designer, to design and procure furnishings for a London flat. The parties’ written contract provided for estimates, a 20 per cent design fee and payment arrangements. Project management and building works were not initially included, although the scope was later varied.

The claimant alleged that the defendant had overcharged, breached contractual and statutory duties, delayed completion, wrongfully retained furniture and caused consequential losses. The principal issues were the proper construction of the pricing mechanism, the scope of the defendant’s obligations, the sums payable for work undertaken and whether damages were recoverable for delay and loss of use.

1. Claim dismissed. On the court’s construction, the contract contemplated that the defendant would submit estimates for approval. Once accepted, an estimate became binding, subject to the contractual provisions allowing changes to scope, unforeseen events and supplier price alterations.
2. The contract was not a cost-plus arrangement requiring the defendant to charge only its own procurement cost with a fee added. It permitted the defendant to propose a budget for approval. The claimant accepted the relevant FF&E estimate, so the agreed figure governed that work.
3. Where the defendant undertook work without a sufficiently accepted estimate, the contractual pricing machinery did not operate. The defendant was therefore entitled to reasonable remuneration on a quantum meruit basis. In the absence of better evidence, actual expenditure plus the applicable fee and VAT provided the appropriate valuation for the building-related works.
4. Section 13 of the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982 implied a term that the defendant would carry out its services with reasonable skill and care. The claimant’s proposed wider implied term requiring the defendant to act reasonably and in good faith was rejected. An obligation not to charge more than was properly due was unnecessary, and the contract did not impose further approval, due-diligence or project-management obligations beyond its express terms.
5. The original contract covered interior design development, ordering, order management and installation. It did not initially cover building works or project management. The building-related scope was later varied, but the evidence did not establish an accepted estimate for those works.
6. The claims for loss of use, hotel expenses, remedial works, licence costs, loss of use of furniture and double VAT accounting failed or were abandoned. The evidence did not establish a reliable period of delay attributable to the defendant or the claimant’s actual lost use. The defendant was entitled to retain unpaid furniture under the contractual retention-of-title clause, but no counterclaim was pursued. On the alternative expenditure-based calculation, the claimant had overpaid, and no further sum was payable to the defendant.