Kay’s solicitor to Expandify’s lawyer: sent response and breach notice cover

Kay’s solicitor’s sent 4 September response challenges Expandify’s contract, delay and payment positions and sends Kay’s breach notice.

Redacted copy of Kay’s solicitor’s sent response only. The incoming email is summarised separately. Legal submissions and allegations are attributed to their sender, not findings.

What the response addresses

Expandify’s solicitor maintained that the signed agreement covered supply and delivery of goods rather than a building contract, and said a separate building contract remained unsigned.

The email accepted 7 September as the payment date but requested cleared funds by 4 September to support possible delivery on 8 September. It attributed delays to batch scheduling, factory shutdowns, packing and shipping disruption.

Kay was placed third in the installation sequence, with installation estimated around 26 October and completion around 30 November. The proposed dates were subject to payment, weather and third-party availability.

Website summary of incoming correspondence. Original retained privately. The positions described are disputed and are not findings.

Readable source text

Verbatim text of the redacted sent response. Names, firms, signatures and contact details are omitted. The incoming email is summarised in the neighbouring tab.

Kay’s solicitor’s response, 4 September 2026

Dear Colleague, The allegation that the that contract is simply agreement for the supply and delivery of goods and not a building contract is disingenuous. The Contract of 11 July 2025 expressly states that it is for the “complete supply, install and council approval package”. That is a clear intention to carry out the installation of the pre-fabricated home, which amounts to domestic building work and as such the agreement amounts to a domestic building contract as your client has undertaken to carry out building work. The fact that the contract entered did not contain terms specific to building work element of the agreement is a failure on your client’s behalf but does not, in our view, show that it was not your client’s intention to install the home. Further, your client provided a second contract for the same work at the same price with no proposed amendment to the “Sales Agreement” to separate the sale from the building work which also in the proposed reference schedule that the deposit and first progress payment had already been paid. Your client stated “this contract ensures your project is aligned with current Queensland regulations and, most importantly, that you are fully covered by the protections, warranties, and insurances that come with building under a licensed builder.” Notwithstanding, this statement by your client about the new contract being misleading, the conduct of your client is inconsistent with the allegation that the contract were merely for the supply and delivery of goods made in your email. Our client raised concerns about this second contract by way of our letter dated 30 June 2026 which your client did not respond to other than to adjust the build period. Section 30 of Schedule 1B – Domestic Building Contracts of the Queensland Building and Construction Commission Act 1991 your client must not start to provide any contracted services before the contract complies with the requirements of Schedule 1B. Accordingly, your client’s failure to respond with reasonable diligence has created the current atmosphere of distrust (in addition to the conduct of Mr Tim Austin who was acting on your client’s behalf). Your client made the representations regarding the 20 to 29 week handover period in writing so our client fails to see why she should be responsible for your client’s unfulfilled promises. Twenty weeks from 11 July 2025 is 28 November 2025 and the air strikes on Iran commenced 28 February 2026. Christmas and New Years shut down periods are foreseeable risks that your client ought to have made allowances for. In fact, your client represented in writing that its estimated timeline accounted for “build scheduling, batch queue timing, port delays and site specific conditions”. Furthermore, your client is seeking our client’s cooperation but, from our client’s perspective, it is all on your client’s terms notwithstanding the issues have arisen due to your client and its conduct, demonstrating a mala fide attitude towards your client’s interests and concerns. In this regard: your client wants to receive 90% of the contract price, before the product has been delivered to site and before your client installs it on site and then carries out works to make it habitable. In our view the works to be carried out from today will amount to greater than 10% of the contract price . your client’s invoice of 21 October 2025 (which we attach) included items for: shipping; shipping FOB;

Kay’s solicitor’s response, 4 September 2026 (continued)

delivery from port for first 100km; certifiers final visit to sign off; foundations install; electrical labour & certification; cleaning; builder; building installation; standard crane hire; trenching variation, all of which were works yet to be performed and which suggest your client has in fact received payment from our client for all costs it has incurred to date. your client attempting to rely on post-dated specification to claim an alleged entitlement to variations; your client’s representative telling our client that if she did not pay now (even though the pre-fabricated dwelling had not arrived in Australia) she would not receive her manufactured home and that Expandify would enter insolvency; and your client has still failed to provide details of your client’s nominee. Without a building licence your client is unable to complete the building works, a fundamental breach of the contract. Accordingly, we attach our client’s breach notice.

Source limitations

Names, firms, signatures, contact details and private identifiers are redacted. The quoted email chain is omitted. Original retained privately.