Chapter 15 - substantially the same benefits as those as...

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Question #1 The Caplans in their contract with Faithful Construction had the specification list that stated that all plumbing bowls and fixtures must be of the Crane brand. The duty to perform under this contract is Conditions Precedent. Conditions Precedent is the conditions that must be fulfilled before a party’s performance. In our example Faithful Construction installed Kohler brand fixtures instead the Crane brand. The Caplans inspected the work and discovered the substitution, and thus refused to accept the house. The Caplans claimed that Faithful breached the conditions set forth in the specifications. The condition precedes the absolute duty to perform, nonoccurrence of which will terminate the performance of existing obligations under the contract. If condition is not satisfied, the obligations of the parties are discharged. On the other side this case can also meet the substantial performance criteria. The substitution is equal and performance is not varying greatly from the performance promised in the contract. It also create
Background image of page 1
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: substantially the same benefits as those as promised since the entire house was built. Court is likely to hold that the contract has been substantially performed because Kohler is equivalent in the industry substitution for Crane. Question #5 The contract between Murphy and Loan Star Liquors stated that delivery must be made on or before June 1. In this situation the occurrence of delivery van accident makes performance of the contract temporary impossible for Loan Star Liquors. At the morning on June 2 Murphy discovered the nondelivery. Unable to reach Loan Star because their line was busy, Murphy purchased champagne from another dealer. Loan Star Liquors delivered the champagne at Murphy’s residence on the June 2, just before the wedding, instead the June 1. The lapse of time makes performance impracticable and the contract will be discharged from performance because of that. Therefore, in my opinion the court will not satisfy the Loan Star’s claim against Murphy....
View Full Document

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

Ask a homework question - tutors are online