Question

1.

Superior Paver sued homeowners Pamela and Mark for $14,350 it claimed was still owed as extra work incurred in installing concreate pavers in the driveway of their residence. Pamela and Mark had previously paid the $45,000 contract price, and they counterclaimed for $60,500 for the reasonable cost of making the contractor’s work conform to the contract. The evidence established that Superior did not install a proper base of 3” to 4” of crushed limestone before installing the pavers as required by the contract, which caused the pavers to move creating gaps between the pavers and causing water to flow into the garage. To correct the problem the pavers needed to be removed and the area excavated and replaced with a crushed limestone base before, again, installing the pavers. Superior claimed it had substantially performed the contract as their performance resulted in a fully usable driveway, and, the proper remedy, if any, was the reduction of the market value of Pamela and Mark’s property due to any defective performance. Superior further asserted that the cost of redoing the entire job would be economic waste.

The result?

2.

A franchisee owner (Owner) of a popular hotel chain was bound by their franchise agreement with Mega Hotel Inc (Mega). Part of Owner’s obligations included that Owner maintain their 60 room hotel to at least minimum quality assurance standards. Owner’s hotel failed five consecutive quality inspections over two years, with the inspector noting damaged guest rooms, burns in the bedding, and severely stained carpets. Mega canceled the franchise agreement. Owner sued Mega for wrongfully canceling the agreement (breach of contract).

Owner’s defense against Mega cancelling the franchise was the following. The bridge repairs on the road leading to the hotel had adversely affected the hotels ability to live up to the franchise agreement. Further, the repairs made it commercially impractical for Owner to live up to the franchise agreement. For reasons such as the inability of hotel staff to arrive on time and properly clean the rooms. Will Owner’s defense prevail?

Answer 1

1. Issue involved was whether case filed by Superior paver for payment due from homeowners Pamela and Mark is actually justified. Also, the claim raised by the homeowners stands valid?

As per Contract Act, the contractor (superior paver) was supposed to complete the contract as per the conditions mentioned in. If the contractor does not perform the work assigned with respect to the conditions mentioned in the contract, then it will lead to the violation of the contract and the contractor will be liable for the penalty and face the consequences.

In the given case, he didnt complete the work of limestone laying initially before paving the pavers. He breached the terms of contract. Resulting which home owners can claim the damage caused to property along with the contract cost. The argument made by the contractor regarding the economic value of the house does not stand valid because he is confined only to the terms of the contract. He has nothing to do with the other conditions out of the contract.

So, the compensation claimed by house owners for contract value in addition to the cost of bringing the property as it was, stands totally justified. Also, since the contractor didnt complete his work as per contions of the contract, he is not liable for any extra money for any extra work done.

2) Maintenance of quality rooms was the major clause of the franchiese contract. Constant breach of the same condition will lead to neceessary action by the Mega hotel inc.

In the given case, the franchiese owner was constantly failing for maintaining of quality rooms as the per franchiese contract. Also the reason given by the Franchiese owner for such failure was not justified and it would have been avoided.

Costruction of bridge has nothing to do with the miantenance of hotel and internal control of the hotel managemnet. The bridge construction does not make any mainetenace issues which is unavoidable. ALso reporting of employeess on time the responsibility of the hotel management. It cannot take plea of any other conditions.

So cancellation of franchiese contract by Mega hotel Inc is totally justified.