How JustAnswer Works:
  • Ask an Expert
    Experts are full of valuable knowledge and are ready to help with any question. Credentials confirmed by a Fortune 500 verification firm.
  • Get a Professional Answer
    Via email, text message, or notification as you wait on our site.
    Ask follow up questions if you need to.
  • 100% Satisfaction Guarantee
    Rate the answer you receive.
Ask Brisbane-Lawyer Your Own Question
Brisbane-Lawyer, Solicitor - Admitted 2005
Category: Australia Law
Satisfied Customers: 14361
Experience:  I did my law degree at the University of Queensland
Type Your Australia Law Question Here...
Brisbane-Lawyer is online now
A new question is answered every 9 seconds

(AS4901-1988) A sub-contractor enters into a contract with

Resolved Question:

(AS4901-1988) A sub-contractor enters into a contract with a Prime Contractor with LD's applicable to Separable Portions of the subcontract. The prime contractor has LD's only to the Practical Completion date of the Head Contract. The Superintendent (an employee of the Prime Contractor) verbally advises the sub-contractor that he had never applied LD's on a project and would be reluctant to do so on this project, even though the individual Separable portions were likely to overun on time to some extent. As a consequence of this advice the sub-contractor, does not pursue Extension of Time claims and so becomes time barred. The overall project is completed on time without the Prime contractor suffering LD's itself. The Superintendent then at the end of the contract witholds payment and applies LD's to the subcontractor claiming the subcontractor is time barred from EOT claims and therefore has no defence. Can the Estoppel principle be applied? What other legal principles apply? Can you suggest any legal cases that I can research?
Submitted: 6 years ago.
Category: Australia Law
Expert:  Brisbane-Lawyer replied 6 years ago.
The estoppal principle does not apply because of a remark made by the superintendent. These matters need to be set out clearly in the contract between the sub-contractor and the prime contractor.

Unfortunately the sub-contractor's position is very weak here, especially if he cannot prove the remarks made by the superintendent.

I'm sorry, and I wish I had better news for you.

I realize that this answer may not be entirely to your liking, and I regret being the bearer of information that you really don’t want to hear. But it would be unfair to you and unprofessional of me if I were to provide you with anything less than truthful and honest information. As such, if my answer has been helpful or informative to you, even if it wasn't necessarily what you wanted to hear, please hit the Accept button.
Customer: replied 6 years ago.

Could you explain why this is not a variant of Promissary estoppel.


The Superintendent has indicated he was going to suspend an existing contractual rights - AS4901 gives the Superintendent no leeway in the application of LD's other than by granting and extension of time.


The subcontractor then acted on this promise by abstaining from pursuing EOT claims (detrimental reliance) as the Superintendent then refused to grant the Extension of time once the subcontractor was time barred.


The Superintendent did not give notice that he was reinstating his right to apply LD's until after the contract work was completed. Is this not unconsionable conduct under the Trades Practices Act?

Expert:  Brisbane-Lawyer replied 6 years ago.
<> Could you explain why this is not a variant of Promissory estoppal. <>

Because when there is a contract in place, the law of equity does not apply. Estoppal is a concept from equity law.
Customer: replied 6 years ago.
OK, so if the Superintendent indicates that he will not pursue an existing contractual right (to LD's) and on the basis of this the subcontractor alters his stance and agrees not to pursue his contractual rights (to EOT's) then after the Project is completed the Superintendent then applies LD's and asserts the subcontractor is time barred from EOT remedy, what defence can the subcontractor raise.
Expert:  Brisbane-Lawyer replied 6 years ago.
A section 52 Trade Practices Act claim for misleading and deceptive conduct.

If my answer has been helpful or informative, please press the Accept button. I am also able to answer further questions after accepting.
Brisbane-Lawyer and other Australia Law Specialists are ready to help you