It's called a contract By Tom Grace Introduction A recent decision of the Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia demonstrates the horrendous consequences which may result from a dispute as to what works were included in a home renovation contract. In or around June 2011, Mr McIntyre contacted SA Quality Roofing Services (“QRS”) requesting a quote for the construction of a verandah and other works at his house. Three separate quotes were supplied by QRS being for roof restoration work, replacement of gutters and downpipes, and to supply and install a new curved verandah. The verandah quote also referred to “optional extras,” relating to work to enclose the verandah. In July 2011 the QRS salesperson again attended at the property to further discuss the quotations. The parties agreed to go ahead, although there was a later disagreement about which documents were exchanged on that day. A number of documents were produced including the Quote, the Construction Plan, Contract Details, plans and drawings submitted to the local council in August 2011, and a variation to the Contract agreed in September 2011. The variation, in part, increased the area of glass on the enclosure to “give a clear view over the lake”. The Construction Plan, drawn by QRS in October 2011, envisaged enclosure to a full height, completely sealed and enclosed. The August 2011 Application for Development Approval was lodged by QRS with the local council. The application included site floor plans and site elevation for the verandah but made no reference to the verandah being enclosed. It later emerged that QRS did not hold a licence that enabled it to construct an enclosed verandah. In September 2011, the Council granted Development Plan Consent in relation to the construction of the verandah, stating the “verandah shall not be enclosed on any side with any solid material, roller door, or the like”. In November 2011 QRS built a verandah to the southern and western elevations of the house and the McIntyre’s laid paving under the verandah. Ms McIntyre was not happy with the work performed by QRS and in late November, she wrote to QRS asking for “plans for works including 3D views as requested so I can get an idea on what we have purchased”. Subsequently, Ms McIntyre wrote again saying “the verandah needs to be finished before any money is paid”. Ms McIntyre repeated her request for plans on other occasions before receiving, on 15 February 2012, a drawing showing a gap between the southern and western verandahs. The parties were at odds about whether there should have been a “hip” connecting the two verandahs and what type of enclosure was included in the contract. The McIntyres considered the contract specified the construction of a single enclosed “return style verandah”, whereas QRS maintained the specifications were for the construction of two curved verandahs on the southern and western sides of the property, which would include the “gap” between them. QRS contended the enclosed nature of the verandah was to be further developed and agreed after construction had commenced. The McIntyres approached the Council to complain about the verandahs. The Council inspected and found the verandah as it had been erected, differed from the approved drawings, and a new application was required to seek retrospective approval. QRS applied for that approval but the McIntyres refused to give their consent to the new application. Consequently, the Council declined to entertain the application. A stalemate emerged.