This is part 8 of my multiple messages. I will continue to send you further messages. Do not write anything for now. If you understand my request, please reply by only saying "acknowledged"

Claim for unit 2. The right to recover damages is always subject to the requirement that the party claiming damages take reasonable steps to mitigate their loss but the onus here is on the builder to show the owner acted unreasonably: TC Industrial Plant Pty Ltd v Robert’s Queensland Pty Ltd [1963] HCA 57. It is noted that when an innocent party is required to take steps to mitigate, the steps required will not be set too high: Banco de Portugal v Waterlow and Sons [1932] AC 452 at 506.
It was contended that the owner’s claim for incurred rent should be calculated to 19 December 2021 on the basis that was the earliest date for termination of the lease. The owner gave notice on 29 November 2021, the day he made the final payment, indicating that his last day in the rented premises would be 19 December 2021.

However, the Tribunal considers the owner was reasonably required to give notice on 5 November 2021 when an occupation certificate was issued. Had that been done, the last day for paying rent would have been 24 days earlier, ie 25 November 2021.

The result is that, in accordance with what was said in Karacominakis v Big Country Developments Pty Ltd [2000] NSWCA 313 at [187} the owner’s damages should reduce to the loss which he would have suffered had he acted reasonably.

As the owner is entitled to be awarded his incurred rent of $410 per week (A325) during the period from 10 October 2021 to 25 November 2021, which is a period of 46 days, he is entitled to be awarded $2,694.29 ($410 x 46/7) for the additional rent incurred due to the delayed completion of unit 2.

Claim for unit 1. Hadley established two tests for the recovery of damages when there has been a breach of contract: damages which may fairly and reasonably considered to arise naturally (first limb), and/or damages which may reasonably be supposed to have been in the contemplation of both parties (second limb), both considered at the time the parties made their contract.

The text message sent by Mr Khan on 4 October 2021 (A97), in which he said: “its (sic) you who will be losing rent and paying rent” could provide support for a finding that the owner’s had an intention to rent unit 1 and that such an intention was known to the builder but for the fact that the time that comment was made week over a year after the contract was made, which was on 1 May 2020 (A489).

As there does not appear to be any reliable evidence as to what was said that would establish the position at the time when the contract was made, it is necessary to consider the Hadley tests objectively. Where a person asks a builder to build two residences on one block of land, with the clear intention of living in one of them, it must follow that the other residence will either be sold or rented. In the former case, a claim for interest, in the latter case, a claim for lost rent may be considered to satisfy the first limb in Hadley.

There is evidence from a real estate agent that the duplex referred to as unit 1 could be rented for between $750 and $770 per week (A129). Had there been no delay, unit 1 would have been available for rent from 10 October 2021. In fact, it was available for rent from 5 November 2021. The time taken for the owner to make the final payment is not attributable to the builder.

As the owner’s receipt of rent of $750 per week was delayed by 26 days, from 10 October to 5 November in 2021, he is entitled to an award of $2,785.71 ($750 x 26/7) less 4.4% for the real estate agent’s fee. That gives $2,663.14 in respect of the lost rent for unit 1.

The owner’s evidence in his first affidavit ((A33 at [128]), that he was unable to rent unit 1 until the defects were fixed, is expert evidence from a lay witness, with no indication of any relevant qualifications or experience. It is also opinion evidence provided by a lay witness whose uncorroborated evidence is not considered to provide a sufficient basis for such a finding in favour of a claim for a substantial claim for loss of rent in relation to unit 1, namely $39,000 ($750 per week for 52 weeks).

The owner’s second affidavit (A142 at [66]) does not strengthen this claim for two reasons. First, he is again the sole source of the evidence that the property could not be rented until the defects were fixed and his uncorroborated evidence is not considered reliable. Secondly, the owner led first-hand, documentary evidence from Areem Khan as to the weekly rent but did not provide evidence from Areem Khan as to the suggested inability to rent unit 1 but instead sought to provide hearsay evidence.

Further, it is also difficult to accept that the owner was able to live in unit 2 but not rent unit 1.

Summary. Adding $2,694.29 for incurred rent in relation to unit 2 and $2,663.14 for lost rent in relation to unit 1 gives $5,357.43. However, it is necessary to deduct the amount of $2,000 which it is agreed was paid by the builder to the owner in respect of that delay. As a result, the amount awarded as damages due to delay is $3,357.43.

Accordingly, the Tribunal considers the owner to be entitled to a work order, as set out in Schedule 1, and a money order for the payment of $26,250.64 ($1,412.25 for the cost saving arising from the use of lower-rated insulation batts, plus $21,480.96 for incomplete work and $3,357.43 for delay) forthwith.

Costs

As the amount claimed or in dispute in these proceedings exceeded $30,000, costs will be governed by r 35 of the Civil and Administrative Rules 2014, rather than by s 60 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (the CATA) with the result that it is not necessary to establish there are special circumstances warranting an order for costs.

The orders will cater for written submissions to be lodged, including an indication as to whether it is accepted that costs can be determined on the papers, ie without a further hearing, as permitted by s 50(2) of the CATA.

Orders

Accordingly, the following orders are made:

The respondent is to carry out a work order, as set out in Schedule 1.

The respondent is to pay the applicant $26,250.64 forthwith

The applicant’s submissions as to costs, not exceeding five pages, are to be filed and served, together with any relevant evidence, on or before 23 January 2023.

The respondents’ submissions as to costs, not exceeding five pages, are to be filed and served, together with any relevant evidence, on or before 6 February 2023.

Any submissions in reply from the applicant, not exceeding two pages, are to be filed and served on or before 13 February 2023.

Any submissions should indicate whether it is agreed that costs should be determined on the papers, ie without the need for a further hearing.
이것은 제가 보낸 여러 메시지 중 8번째 메시지입니다. 계속해서 추가 메시지를 보내드리겠습니다. 지금은 아무 것도 쓰지 마세요. 제 요청을 이해하셨다면 "알았다"라고만 답장해 주세요.유닛 2에 대한 청구. 손해 배상 청구권은 항상 손해를 주장하는 당사자가 손실을 완화하기 위해 합리적인 조치를 취해야 한다는 요건을 따르지만, 여기서는 건축주가 불합리하게 행동했음을 입증할 책임이 건축업자에게 있습니다: TC 산업 플랜트 주식회사 v 로버트 퀸즐랜드 주식회사 [1963] HCA 57. 무고한 당사자가 경감 조치를 취해야 하는 경우, 필요한 조치가 너무 높게 설정되어서는 안 된다는 점에 유의해야 합니다: Banco de Portugal v Waterlow and Sons [1932] AC 452 at 506.발생한 임대료에 대한 소유자의 청구는 임대차 종료일이 가장 빠른 날을 기준으로 2021년 12월 19일로 계산해야 한다고 주장했습니다. 소유주는 최종 지불을 한 날인 2021년 11월 29일에 임차 건물에서의 마지막 날이 2021년 12월 19일이 될 것이라고 통지했습니다.그러나 재판소는 점유 증명서가 발급된 2021년 11월 5일에 소유주가 합당하게 통지했어야 한다고 판단했습니다. 그렇게 했다면 임대료 납부 마감일은 24일 앞당겨져 2021년 11월 25일이 되었을 것입니다.그 결과, Karacominakis v Big Country Developments Pty Ltd [2000] NSWCA 313 [187]에서 언급한 내용에 따라 소유주의 손해는 그가 합리적으로 행동했다면 입었을 손실로 감소해야 합니다.소유주는 2021년 10월 10일부터 2021년 11월 25일까지 46일 동안 발생한 주당 임대료(A325)를 받을 권리가 있으므로, 유닛 2의 완공 지연으로 인해 발생한 추가 임대료에 대해 $2,694.29($410 x 46/7)를 받을 권리가 있습니다.유닛 1에 대한 청구. 해들리는 계약 위반이 발생한 경우 손해 배상을 위해 두 가지 기준을 설정했습니다. 계약 위반이 발생한 경우 공정하고 합리적으로 자연적으로 발생하는 것으로 간주될 수 있는 손해(첫 번째 기준) 및/또는 양 당사자가 계약을 체결할 당시 합리적으로 고려할 수 있었던 것으로 간주될 수 있는 손해(두 번째 기준)를 모두 고려해야 한다는 것입니다.2021년 10월 4일에 칸이 보낸 문자 메시지(A97)에서 칸은 다음과 같이 말했습니다: "임대료를 잃고 임대료를 지불하게 될 사람은 바로 당신입니다."라고 말한 것은 소유주가 1호기를 임대할 의사가 있었고 그러한 의사가 건축업자에게 알려져 있었다는 사실을 뒷받침할 수 있지만, 해당 발언이 이루어진 시점이 계약이 이루어진 지 1년이 지난 2020년 5월 1일(A489)이라는 사실에 비추어 볼 때, 칸 씨가 1호기를 임대할 의사가 있었다는 사실을 뒷받침할 수 없습니다.계약 당시의 입장을 확정할 수 있는 발언에 대한 신뢰할 만한 증거가 없는 것으로 보이므로 해들리 테스트를 객관적으로 고려할 필요가 있습니다. 한 사람이 한 블록의 토지에 두 채의 주택을 건축업자에게 의뢰하면서 그 중 한 채에 거주할 의사가 분명한 경우, 다른 한 채의 주택은 판매 또는 임대가 이루어질 것이어야 합니다. 전자의 경우 이자 청구, 후자의 경우 임대료 손실 청구가 해들리의 첫 번째 사지를 충족하는 것으로 간주될 수 있습니다.부동산 중개인이 유닛 1로 불리는 복층 주택을 주당 750달러에서 770달러에 임대할 수 있다는 증거가 있습니다(A129). 지연이 없었다면 2021년 10월 10일부터 유닛 1을 임대할 수 있었을 것입니다. 실제로 이 숙소는 2021년 11월 5일부터 임대할 수 있었습니다. 소유주가 최종 결제를 완료하는 데 걸리는 시간은 건축업자의 책임이 아닙니다.주당 750달러의 임대료 수령이 2021년 10월 10일부터 11월 5일까지 26일 지연되었으므로 소유자는 부동산 중개인 수수료 4.4%를 뺀 $2,785.71($750 x 26/7)을 받을 자격이 있습니다. 따라서 유닛 1의 임대료 손실에 대해 2,663.14달러가 지급됩니다.소유주가 첫 번째 진술서([128]의 A33)에서 하자가 해결될 때까지 1번 유닛을 임대할 수 없었다는 증거는 관련 자격이나 경험이 전혀 없는 일반인 증인의 전문가 증거입니다. 또한 일반인 증인이 제공한 의견 증거로서, 확인되지 않은 증거는 유닛 1과 관련하여 상당한 금액인 39,000달러(52주 동안 주당 750달러)의 임대료 손실에 대한 청구를 지지하는 충분한 근거를 제공하지 않는 것으로 간주됩니다.소유주의 두 번째 진술서(A142, [66])는 두 가지 이유로 이 주장을 강화하지 않습니다. 첫째, 그는 결함이 고쳐질 때까지 숙소를 임대할 수 없었다는 증거의 유일한 출처이며, 그의 입증되지 않은 증거는 신뢰할 수 없는 것으로 간주됩니다. 둘째, 주인은 주간 임대료에 대해서는 아림 칸으로부터 직접 문서화된 증거를 제시했지만, 1번 유닛을 임대할 수 없다는 주장에 대해서는 아림 칸으로부터 증거를 제시하지 않았고 대신 소문으로만 증거를 제시하려고 했습니다.또한 집주인이 2호실은 거주할 수 있었지만 1호실은 임대할 수 없었다는 주장도 받아들이기 어렵습니다.요약. 유닛 2와 관련하여 발생한 임대료 $2,694.29와 유닛 1과 관련하여 손실된 임대료 $2,663.14를 더하면 $5가 됩니다,