Carl Harrison v Andrea Elaine Buchanan & Anor

A contract for the creation and supply of technical drawings may be established orally from the parties’ communications and conduct. A party alleging an implied term that drawings are fit for purpose must provide evidence of the applicable criteria, the basis for implying the term, and the alleged failure to meet it. Where the agreed price is uncertain or unsupported by evidence, the court may assess the sum due by reference to the parties’ later agreement or other reliable evidence of value.

The claimant created technical drawings for components of an electrochemical water conditioner at the request of the defendants. He claimed that an oral agreement required payment for his work and that the defendants had breached the agreement by failing to pay. Copyright infringement claims were not pursued at trial because the available evidence was insufficient.

The defendants initially denied any binding agreement, but accepted during the trial that the drawings were to be created and supplied for payment. They also contended that the drawings were unfit for purpose. The principal issues were whether a payment agreement existed, whether any fitness-for-purpose term was implied, and what sum was due.

1. Contract. There was an oral agreement, concluded on or shortly after 22 May 2022, under which the claimant would create and supply technical drawings of the conditioner and the defendants would pay for them.
2. Fitness for purpose. The defendants had not established an implied term requiring the drawings to be fit for purpose. There was no sufficient evidence of the criteria the drawings had to meet, the basis on which such a term should be implied, or why the drawings failed to satisfy those criteria. A letter stating that an engineering company would not proceed with the project did not establish those matters.
3. Amount payable. The claimant’s claimed rate and alleged 100 days of work were unsupported. The parties’ communications in June and July 2023 provided the most reliable guide and showed that €15,000 was regarded as the fair sum for the drawings. This was equivalent to approximately £13,160.
4. The claimant therefore succeeded in his breach of contract claim. Judgment was entered for £13,880, comprising £13,160 damages and £720 interest. No order was made as to costs.