Чтение и письмо: переписка сторон (дистанцированные просьбы)

THREE LETTERS: A DELAYED REFURBISHMENT

1. From the client (Northfield Community Trust) to the contractor
Dear Mr Reid,
Further to our meeting on 3 March, I am writing to set out our position on the delay to the refurbishment of the community hall. The contract provides for completion by 28 February; as of today the work is three weeks late, and the hall remains closed. Our position is that the delay is the contractor's responsibility and that the liquidated damages clause — £400 per week — applies. We would be prepared, however, to waive the damages in return for completion by 21 March and a written undertaking that the kitchen will be fitted at no additional cost. Should you be unable to meet that date, we would need to consider our options. I would be grateful for your response by Friday.
Yours sincerely, Helen Marsh

2. From the contractor to the client
Dear Ms Marsh,
Thank you for your letter. With respect, we do not accept that the delay is entirely ours. Two weeks of it followed the discovery of asbestos in the ceiling, which was not shown on the survey supplied by the Trust; had we known, we would have programmed the work differently and quoted for its removal. That said, we accept responsibility for the third week and have no wish to argue about the first two at length. We are prepared to complete by 28 March — not the 21st, which would require work we cannot safely compress — and to fit the kitchen at cost, in exchange for the damages being waived in full and for the asbestos removal (£3,200) being paid by the Trust. We would also ask that the hall remain closed until sign-off; a partial opening was suggested at the meeting, and I am afraid that is not something we can agree to. This offer is made without prejudice.
Yours sincerely, David Reid

3. From the client to the contractor
Dear Mr Reid,
Thank you for your prompt reply. We accept your counter-proposal in principle, with the following changes. Completion by 28 March is agreed, provided that the date is a firm commitment and not an intention; we would ask you to confirm this in writing. The asbestos removal is accepted at £2,400 rather than £3,200, since the survey was commissioned jointly and the Trust should not bear the whole cost of an error neither of us made. The kitchen at cost is agreed, except that «cost» is to be evidenced by invoices. The hall will remain closed until sign-off. On that basis, the damages are waived in full and final settlement. One point remains open: the date of the final inspection, which we suggest should be 30 March. For the avoidance of doubt, nothing in this letter is binding until the attached heads of terms are signed by both parties.
Yours sincerely, Helen Marsh