Brendon is a Carpenter by profession and has a successful business. Brendon was approached by Chris to build a double-story house. All the house plans were approved by the local Town Council and stamped by the Engineers. Chris asked Brendon to build the house and both parties agreed that Brendon will build the house for the sum of $150,000.00 which was to be completed within 6 months. The parties agreed to a scope of work where payment would be made upon completion of each stage. There were 6 stages to the scope of the work agreement. The payment was agreed to be made after completion of each stage. Apart from this, both parties agreed that should there be any variation to the work, it shall be discussed mutually and agreed upon between the parties. Brendon commenced work on the building and after the 3rd stage, Chris wanted to make changes to the size of the building as well as the number of beams in the building. 

Chris instructed Brendon to make the additional changes but Brendon was reluctant to make changes without an amended approved plan from the Engineers. Chris said, "It is alright. I have consulted the Engineers already on this and the amended building plan has already been approved". Brendon then continued with the construction and changes which cost Brendon an additional $15,000.00. The Engineers inspected the stages in line with the building plan and refused to provide certification to continue with the construction as there was no approved amended plan. Chris was not happy and terminated the agreement. Immediately after terminating the agreement, Chris brought another Contractor on site to continue the construction. Brendon had already spent $70,000.00 on the building.  Brendon has come to you for advice in this matter.

 

1. What doctrines can Brendon rely on to bring an action against Chris?

2. Would Brendon be able to sustain a claim for specific performance of contract? If not, what are his options?