Mary, a single mum, was looking for a reliable constructor to build her a new home by Trout Lake in East Sydney. This was her first home and she had no experience in building or buying real estate. One of Mary's co-workers recommended Simon Woods and his company, Best Home Building Ltd. Mary entered into the contract with that company in September 2013. The contract had a completion date of 15th January 2014. Mary was to pay $210 per square metre for the work that would include design, engineering, building permits and construction costs.

Mary opted for a simple but functional four-bedroom, three-bathroom home with a basement suite. Mary specified in the discussion with Simon that the home had to be wheelchair accessible in order to accommodate her mother's visits. In addition, she made special requests regarding the flooring: proper levelling of all floors, specifically the difference in floor levels is less than 3cm and smooth transition from hardwood floor in the guest and living rooms to the ceramic tile floor in the kitchen and bathrooms. Mary asked for 3-meter ceilings and big windows. In responding to these requests, Simon said No problem. We can do all of that easily. Worrying that Mary may choose a different company, Simon said that if you go with us, we will paint the fence for you for free". Mary responded that its fantastic.

The written contract prepared by Best Homes was signed by Mary and Simon at Best Homes' office. As an alcoholic person, Mary consumed 10 bottles of beer before she met Simon to sign the contract. Upon signing the deal, she paid what Simon called a standard business deposit of 10% of the constructions costs and agreed to make the rest of the payments after the completion of the house. The contract did not address the wheelchair accessibility, flooring and ceiling issues. The receipt of the deposit contained the following statements: 1) "Best Homes will not responsible for any damage if the work is completed in a workman like manner and in compliance with the best practices of the construction industry". 2) "Best Homes can make any adjustments that are deemed reasonable and Best Home will not be responsible for any adjustments in this manner". It was not clear whether Mary read the receipt of the deposit or not. In the written contract, there are exactly the same statements. However, since Mary was affected by alcohol, she did not read the contract before signing it.

The work got delayed as the flooring work turned out to be challenging. The house was completed in November 2015. Disputes emerged about some deficiencies.

First, when the Best Homes carpenter called Mary to approve the framing of the house, Mary learned that the carpenter received instructions from Best Homes to work on 2.5-meter ceilings. Mary called Simon and she ended up in a heated argument whereby Simon started shouting at Mary that she had to get over herself and accept to live with 2.5-meter ceilings like everybody else. He insisted that 2.5-meter ceilings were the construction standard and in acordance with all building regulations. To avoid delays, she reluctantly agreed that the work could proceed with the lower ceiling. However, Simon was upset and he said he would stop completing the work. Mary told Simon that she would pay additional $2000 if he continued the work. Simon agreed and proceeded with the work.

Second, the hardwood flooring was difficult to install and Best Home had to replace several panels at its own expense. In addition, the transition strips were not an adequate remedy for the difference in floor levels. The difference in level from one flooring to another is 6cm. The builder reassured Mary that it was good construction practice that the difference in level from one flooring to another is less than 7cm and that transition strips will be used to remedy the difference in floor levels.

Third, Best Home forgot to construct a wheelchair access to the house.

Fourth, the fence was also not painted by Best Home.. As a result, on 7th November 2015, Mary had to ask Ben, a house painter, whether he can paint the fence for her or not. Ben and Mary used to be neighbours when they rented nearby apartments but Ben just moved to a nearby suburb. During the phone conversation, Mary told Ben that The property is at 65 Patrick Street, Oakleigh East. The fence is 20 meters long and 1 meter high. I want it to be painted green. I will pay you $1000 if you use your paint. Ben said that I am very busy now. So I am not very sure I can travel there to paint the fence for you. On 9th November 2015, Mary called Ben back but she could not reach him on the phone. Mary then immediately posted a letter to Ben stating that "Don't worry about the fence. I will find another workman to do the job. For unknown reasons, the letter went missing. On 13th November, Ben texted Mary saying that "I will come and paint the fence for you this afternoon. I will use my green paint to paint it. I am happy to be paid $1000". After reading the text message, Mary asked him not to come because she had successfully found another workman who would come and do the painting soon. Regardless of that, Ben still came and painted the fence. When Mary visited the place on 17th November 2015, she was very surprised that her fence had been painted. She immediately called Ben and asked "Are you the one who painted the fence for me?. Ben said "yes".

Mary finally took possession of her new home in January 2016. She was very upset because she did not get the home she wanted. She was even more upset because the local authority recently confirmed with her that the standard height of the ceiling is 2.7m and the standard difference in floor levels is less than 5cm. Mary did not want to pay the remaining $69,000 and the additional $2000. She also wanted to take Simon to court to pay her damages for the loss of cnjoyment of her home, her stress, and for repair of all deficiencies, including the floor and ceiling.

Mary also denied paying Ben $1000 for the painting job. Ben was extremely unhappy.

Please discuss who can sue whom for what? (All relevant legal issues should be discussed regardless of whether these relevant legal issues are successful or not).

Do not discuss tort law.