BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION AND LAW / BAFN 332SPRING 2020ASSIGNMENT 11.CASE: RAS Builders Inc v Ecluid and Commonwealth Associates2.Relevant factsI.Euclid and Commonwealth Associates is the owner of a shopping center in Aurora that will beleased, in January 1994, for seven years to Child Care Centers. Sevo Miller is in charge tomanage the property.II.A very important fact is that in the contract between Euclid and Child Care Centers it isspecifically said that “all interior construction would be done at Child Care Centers’ cost andexpenses, been wholly responsible to all contractors, subcontractors, laborers, andmaterialmen”. So, with this, we can understand that even though Euclid and Associates, asthe owners, have to be aware of the plans to approve or reject them, they will be out of anyliability between any relationships that could exist between Child Care Centers and acontractor.III.Euclid agreed to pay Child Care Centers (tenant) $60,000 toward remodeling if the tenantwould have met certain conditions, and not defaulted in payment.IV.Child Care Centers entered into a contract with RAS Builders, Inc. to construct/remodel thecenter. The price was $101,840; more than what Euclid gave them to help Child Care Centerwith any reconstruction. They experienced financial troubles leaving them with no financialsupport to pay either RAS for their work performed nor Euclid for the rent. By September1994, they filed bankruptcy protection.V.RAS filed a suit against Euclid, Sevo Miller, and Child Care Centers. According to RAS, theyclaimed it is unjust enrichment of the construction of the center against Euclid.