Question 1:

Paul Stratford (builder) gave a quote to build an extension to the front of John and Angela Porter's house at Penrith for $92,530. Seven days later John and Angela accepted the quote by sending a text saying, "Thanks for your quote which is accepted. Can you please let me know when the work can start". Seven days later Paul started the work. Just prior to completion John and Angela noted that no doors were installed to any room, including the front door to the extension. When John and Angela questioned Paul he said," Doors were not mentioned in the quote and therefore I don't have to install them".

Advise John and Angela.

Chatbot's answer:

Obligations also may arise under a contract by implication (to paraphrase Lord Diplock's terminology in Photo Production Ltd v. Securicor Transport Ltd [1980] A.C. 287 at 850). A term may be implied by law or be implied from the facts Greaves & Co. (Contractors Ltd v. Baynham Meikle & Partners [1975] 1. W.L.R 1095). The conditions necessary to support the implication of a term were summarised in the majority judgment of the Privy Council in B.P. Refinery (Westernport) Pty Ltd v. Hastings Shire Council (1978) 52 A.L.J.R. 20 at 26 and restated in Codelfa Construction Pty Ltd v. State Rail Authority (N.S.W.) (1982) 49 C.L.R. 337 at 347:

(1) it must be reasonable and equitable;

(2) it must be necessary to give business efficacy to the contract, so that no term will be implied if the contract is effective without it;

(3) it must be so obvious that 'it goes without saying':

(4) must be capable of expressions;

(4) You must also prove it beyond reasonable doubt which you will not be able to so you will not succeed. It must be clear and must not contradict any terms of the Contract.

1. Is the Chatbot's answer to question 1 accurate? Why/why not? Please refer to the Codelfa v State Rail case