Question

CONTEMPORARY CANADIAN BUSINESS LAW : Chapter 14, Page 260, Case 4

Awwad, a skilled carpenter, agreed to construct a garage for Henderson for a contract price of $3,000. Henderson was to supply the plans, foundation, and materials. Awwad constructed the garage according to the plans. When the building had been framed, he discovered that the siding boards that Henderson had purchased were of poor-grade lumber. The boards could only be made to fit with a great deal of hand labour and cutting. Awwad complained to Henderson and demanded that he provide siding boards that were of “construction-grade” lumber. Henderson refused to do so. An argument followed in which Awwad refused to complete the work until Henderson provided suitable materials. At the time of the argument, the foundation, the roof, and the walls had been erected. The work that remained included the installation of the wall siding, the doors and windows, and the trim. Discuss the rights of the parties and the nature of the claims and defences of each. Indicate the possible outcome, if the case should come before the courts.

Answer 1

****Please please please LIKE THIS ANSWER, so that I can get a small benefit, Please****

Discuss the rights of the parties and the nature of the claims and defences of each. Indicate the possible outcome, if the case should come before the courts.

This case raises the question of responsibility for breach, and the rights and obligations which flow from it. Does the failure on the part of Henderson to provide suitable materials constitute a breach of the contract on his part? Does this entitle Awwad to refuse to complete his part of the agreement? Is it a custom of the trade to use "construction grade" lumber for all new construction? Could this term be implied in the agreement? If the obligation on Henderson to supply "construction grade" lumber can be implied, then his breach of the term might entitle Awwad to cease work, and take action against him on the basis of quantum meruit for work done, since Henderson's actions may have rendered performance impossible for Awwad. Awwad, however, would only be entitled to a reasonable price for his services, and he would not be entitled to the full $3,000, as the latter amount would represent payment for the completed contract.