They argued that there was an implied term in the contract entitling them to this, if the work was impeded by an injunction. It also argued that the contract was frustrated from the time of the injunction, and they were entitled to be paid for the value of the work done afterwards, on the basis of a quantum meruit . . HELD Mason J Codelfa argues that a term has to be implied into the contract to give business efficacy to it. There is no difference between the parties as to the documents which constitute the contract - the difference between them is as to the meaning and effect of them. Although not interpreting the language of a contract, it is an exercise in interpretation.
Rectification is based on actual intention.
Implication based on presumed intention. Courts are slow to imply terms - the reason is that it is difficult to know what the parties might have decided. So in addition to being reasonable to imply a term, it must also be necessary to give business efficacy to the contract. So obvious it goes without saying Capable of clear expression Must not contradict any express term of the contract. Nevertheless, his remarks are relevant to the issue of implication.