Read the full judgment text of HCCT 11/2008 on BabelCite. This 高等法院原訟法庭 judgment was delivered on 16 September 2010 before Hon Reyes J.
Construction Law — Consultancy Agreement — Interpretation of “variation amount” — Contract enlargement and variation — Bonus entitlement — Evidence — Documentary and oral — Raffles v. Wichelhaus distinguished. The plaintiffs, DARG, engaged by Asia Landscaping as consultants for soft landscape works at the Venetian Macau project, claimed entitlement to a 5% bonus on the increased contract sum arising from Supplemental Agreements which expanded the project to include Zones D and E beyond the originally tendered Zones A, B, and C. The defendant, Asia Landscaping, argued the bonus applied only to variations under the original contract scope. The Court examined contemporaneous documents, communications, and oral evidence, finding that the parties intended the bonus to cover additional work beyond Zones A to C. The Court rejected claims of ambiguity and lack of consensus ad idem, distinguishing the facts from the Raffles v. Wichelhaus ambiguity precedent. Judgment was entered for the plaintiffs for MOP796,029 with interest, and the defendant’s Counterclaim dismissed. Costs and consequential orders reserved.
Legal issues: Construction of “variation amount” in the Consultancy Agreement
Outcome: DARG’s claim for MOP796,029 succeeds; Asia Landscaping’s Counterclaim dismissed.
Cited by 1 case