A scope disagreement often turns on document versions and assumptions. Compare the agreed deliverables, exclusions and later instructions before pricing a compromise.
Corporate Recovery Partners
01 / 06
Each side expected a different finished result
A landscaper completes paving but the customer says drainage and garden lighting were included. The landscaper's quote excludes electrical work, while a later email mentions coordinating lighting. Both believe the contract is clear. The disagreement needs a document comparison that distinguishes responsibility to arrange work from responsibility to supply and pay for it.
Gather the accepted quote, drawings, specifications, terms and later messages. Record which version was accepted and any order of precedence needing legal interpretation.
Do not rely on one favourable sentence while ignoring an attachment. A scope can be affected by documents incorporated into the agreement as well as the main price page.
List the item, who was expected to supply it, who would install it and what price allowed for it. Separate coordination, design, procurement and physical work.
This often exposes different assumptions that were hidden inside a broad phrase such as complete landscape works. It does not by itself decide which interpretation is legally correct.
Identify requested additions or substitutions and whether they were agreed. Business.gov.au recommends documenting variations and their effect on scope, cost and timing.
Keep an informal conversation distinct from an accepted change. Where construction rules apply, obtain advice on the relevant jurisdiction rather than assuming a verbal instruction resolves everything.
Present the comparison and ask the customer to identify the documents supporting its position. Consider a scoped meeting or professional interpretation if the difference remains material.
Before doing extra work, document the agreed responsibility and price, with appropriate advice about the existing dispute. Completing it without clarification may increase the amount at risk while leaving the original disagreement intact. Check any listed exclusions as carefully as the inclusions, and identify whether a later instruction genuinely changed the agreed boundary.
