The Installation that tried to get away

The Installation that tried to get away : Mubin Ul Haider

Brief Description of the dispute : This commercial dispute is between a Carpet Sales and Installation Company (also referred to as “Party A” in this abstract) and its independent sub-contractor Adam (also refer to as “Party B” in this abstract) regarding Party B’s failure to comply with the Party A’s Subcontractor Agreement.

According to the facts of the case on or about 9 November 2021 the parties entered into a Subcontractor Agreement whereby Party B agreed to provide services known as “Installation Services” for Party A’s customer (as per the “Customer Contract” term). The installation service involved Party B providing supply and/or installing floor covering including carpet, vinyl, and timber flooring systems.

In the material terms of the Subcontract Agreement about this dispute, Party B agreed to the following:

1. to perform the installation service in a timely, skilful, safe, and workmanlike manner and accordance with the industry best practice, all applicable laws and regulations, any applicable Australian Standard, and the applicable Customer Contract; and
2. not to do anything which may cause Party A to be in breach of that Customer Contract.
3. If a customer complaint is made about the installation service within 12 months of the service, Party B agrees to rectify the fault or defect about which the customer has made a complaint. The rectification is to be of reasonable satisfaction to Party A and the customer and to be at Party B’s own expense.

Mubin Ul Haider reflects in this hypothetical that between 3 February 2022 and 6 February 2022, a customer called with a complaint about defective installation service provided by Party B. Party A supplied Party B with a service docket outlined the details of the customer complaint issues relating to installation defects, and thus upon completion of rectification Party B would return to Party A with the service docket containing the customer’s written acknowledgement of rectification as per the Subcontract Agreement.

Party B failed to remedy the defect on time and within reasonable manner as per the terms of the Subcontractor Agreement. Therefore, placing Party B in breach of this agreement. However, Party B disputed the breach on the ground that he made several attempts to visit the customer’s place to rectify the defect however Party B was unsuccessful in reaching the customer on each visit. These visits were reported by Party B to Party A’s Customer service center as evidence.

In addition to this, according to Mubin Ul Haider, Party B also made reasonable attempts to rectify the defect to the customer’s satisfaction, however, the customer’s request required an upgrade of the material which is not included as part of the Customer Contract. Party B made notice of this to Party A.

Parties A stepped in and remedied the defect for the customer by engaging a third-party contractor resulting in a total amount of $31,131.19 to benefit Party A from being in breach of the “Customer Contract”. As a result, Party A engaged in an alternative dispute resolution (this being mediation) with Party B to recover the total amount of $31,131.19.

Parties in the dispute: The parties in this dispute are Party A, Party B and a Customer. Party A is a company that specializes in carpet sales and installation which includes sales of timber, vinyl, and carpet for commercial and residential premises. They also offer installation services through external independent contractors using a Subcontractor Agreement between parties.  Party B is an independent contractor who signs an agreement with the Company (also referred to as “Party A”) and agrees to supply services, including installation of floor covering of all types at various sites for Party A’s customer which is by the term of the Subcontractor Agreement. Party B is also responsible to uphold Party A’s Customer Contract between Party A and its customer and is not doing anything which could cause to be in breach of that Customer Contract. A customer is an individual who engages Party A by singing and Customer Contract for carpet installation service.

Conflict explained by Mubin Ul Haider

Interest Conflict:

Interest conflict is one’s own opinion or position on a particular matter which can derive from their interpersonal views on any matter.[1] In “the Installation that tried to get away” case there was evidence of a conflict of interest between Party A and Party B about honoring their contractual obligations to fulfil customer’s satisfaction and to avoid any material breach. An example of this from “the Installation that tried to get away” case, is where Party B believed that they reasonably upheld their obligation under the Subcontractor agreement. This was seen when party B made reasonable attempts to satisfy the customers’ requests which Party A and the customer disagreed. In addition to this, Party A decided to act upon engaging a third-party subcontractor to rectify the defect of the installation.  As demonstrated from this example it is evident that there is a clear dispute of a conflict of interest between the parties and the customer.

Structural Conflict:

Structural conflicts can occur from inequality between individuals where there are an imbalance of power creating disparity and unfairness in competition which can lead to potential dispute and disagreement.[1] In applying this to the relevant case, Party A holds significant advantage to dictate and enforce a legally binding contract (this being the subcontractor agreement) when Party B fails to comply with the obligation. Evidently, in this case a customer complaint in relation to a defective installation, Party A enforces the contractual obligation to Party B to rectify any customer complaints in relation to their service. The likelihood of a dispute arising in this situation can place either party in advantage of enforcing legal action with respect to the dispute in question. As demonstrated in this case, Part A is enforcing their legal power to recover the debt in a way of resolving their dispute.

Data Conflict:

Under Moore’s theory, a data conflict is defined as an inadequate and lack of understanding of the information being presented in a dispute. This can also include misinformation and interpretation of the different views by individuals or groups which may cause ambiguity. In this case of “the Installation that tried to get Away” there is a lack of clear and concise evidence about the material cost and major communication disruption as to who is liable to pay the customer rectification in dispute. This is evident when Party A believes that under the subcontractor agreement Party B is to pay for the material cost. However, Party B disagrees and believes that the customer’s request for an upgrade should be honored by Party A. As you can see from this case example, there is a clear indication of differences in interpretation and a lack of understanding of the legal obligations required under their contract.

Relationship Conflict:

Relationship conflict occurs when parties are involved in an emotional decision based on their previous negative experience and lack of trust, which can include incidents of language barriers and miscommunication. In this case, the conflict arose due to a negative experience suffered by the customer because of Party B’s inadequate installation service. This could lead to a lack of trust and dissatisfaction by the customer who will most likely forfeit any future engagement with either Party A or Party B. Another example of this conflict occurring is, where Party A engaged Party B to provide a service that would be the customer’s satisfaction. As a result of the defective installation by Party B, Party A can also lose trust to engage Party B for future installation services. Therefore, leaving Part A to disengage Party B for future work due to the loss of customers and negative impact on its company’s reputation.

Value Conflict:

Value conflict arises when an individual forms a view based on the foundation of a unique perception of values and principles. It causes due to lack of understanding individual’s priorities and interests. In this case, the conflict arose due to the Subcontractor Agreement held by Party A clearly mentioning the obligation for Party B which according to Party A believes that Party B failed to comply. Also, Party A believes his principal duty to comply with the Customer Contract for his customer hence made Party B accountable under the Subcontractor Agreement not to do anything which could cause Party A to be in breach of that Customer Contract. Therefore Party A demonstrated a strong value principle which created conflict by upholding its contractual obligation for its customer and Party B.

Reference:

https://synergycommons.net/resources/tool-circle-of-conflict/>

https://smilemundo.com/moore-circle-of-conflict/

DISCLAIMER: HSC Legal provides hypothetical assessments, articles and newsletters on its website for general and informative purposes only. This hypothetical is based on a previous assessment task which was written by a student for university purposes and was happy to share their analysis of Moore’s Circle of Conflict theory. Please note, any information from these assessments, articles and newsletters should not be taken as constituting to professional legal advice. If you do require legal advice, we recommend that you seek assistance from legal professions.

PMG Legal and Consulting Pty Ltd Trading as HSC Legal (HSC Legal) have ceased operations as of 21 September 2022 and notified QLS on 23 September 2022. It is essential to understand that the content on this website does not constitute legal advice. Any reliance placed on the information provided is at the user’s sole risk. Any information contained on this website is for archival purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Should you require legal counsel, it is strongly recommended to contact the Law Society of Queensland or the Legal Aid Commission for referrals to practicing legal professionals. These organizations can provide guidance on your specific legal needs and connect you with qualified attorneys.

PMG Legal and Consulting Pty Ltd Trading as HSC Legal (HSC Legal) accepts no liability for any actions taken or decisions made based on the information contained on this website.