The claimant, ERDC was a contractor who carried out the construction of a new sport facility for the defendant, Brunel University. ERDC had tendered for the works on the basis of a JCT standard form of contract. The works were carried out under letters of intent pending formal execution of the contract.

On expiry of the last letter of intent, ERDC continued to carry out the works. However, when it received the contract for signature, ERDC declined to sign the contract claiming that it would only continue on the basis that all work carried out would be valued on a quantum meruit basis (i.e. a reasonable price for the work done) rather than in accordance with the JCT valuation rules.

Brunel University disagreed with ERDC. Accordingly, ERDC left the site without completing the works and commenced proceedings against Brunel University. Brunel University in turn counterclaimed for defective and unfinished work.

What was the appropriate method of assessing the value of ERDC's works?