Law School Discussion

Nine Years of Discussion
;

Author Topic: puzzled  (Read 760 times)

jennifermassey

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 9
    • View Profile
puzzled
« on: April 16, 2006, 09:19:24 PM »
F made signed written K w/ T to build house for $700,000 & to be paid on completion of work. K included specifications for the house. F completed 10% and stopped work. F sued T and asked for payment expended. T counterclaimed for breach.

Can anyone explain to me why the hypo added "K included specifications for the house."? What is the significance of this?

rezipsa

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 153
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: puzzled
« Reply #1 on: April 25, 2006, 06:52:29 PM »
I would think that the specifications are included to make the contract definite and certain.

Without the specifications, completion of the house would be speculative.  Also with the specifications, T can show what his damages are.

If I was T, I would claim that the contract was invalid or that the contract was recinded and sue on a restitution theory.

J D

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 1388
  • Lust isn't one of the 7 Deadly Sins for nothing...
    • View Profile
Re: puzzled
« Reply #2 on: April 25, 2006, 07:19:02 PM »
I would think that the specifications are included to make the contract definite and certain.

Without the specifications, completion of the house would be speculative.  Also with the specifications, T can show what his damages are.

If I was T, I would claim that the contract was invalid or that the contract was recinded and sue on a restitution theory.

Even with restitution, though, I think T will be entitled to set off his liability by the amount of damages he suffered as a result of the breach under Britton v. Turner.
"I never think of the future.  It comes soon enough."--Albert Einstein

rezipsa

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 153
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: puzzled
« Reply #3 on: April 26, 2006, 12:48:20 PM »
I would think that the specifications are included to make the contract definite and certain.

Without the specifications, completion of the house would be speculative.  Also with the specifications, T can show what his damages are.

If I was T, I would claim that the contract was invalid or that the contract was recinded and sue on a restitution theory.

Even with restitution, though, I think T will be entitled to set off his liability by the amount of damages he suffered as a result of the breach under Britton v. Turner.

True...true.

DutchessA

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 106
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: puzzled
« Reply #4 on: April 26, 2006, 01:40:02 PM »
I think the specifications would matter with regards to substantial performance.

jimmyjohn

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 150
    • View Profile
Re: puzzled
« Reply #5 on: April 26, 2006, 02:30:41 PM »
What I don't understand is why F is suing T.  He completed 10% of work, stopped and now is suing?  Did you leave something out?  Did T anticipatorily breach? 

J D

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 1388
  • Lust isn't one of the 7 Deadly Sins for nothing...
    • View Profile
Re: puzzled
« Reply #6 on: April 26, 2006, 03:32:04 PM »
What I don't understand is why F is suing T.  He completed 10% of work, stopped and now is suing?  Did you leave something out?  Did T anticipatorily breach? 

*Almost* the same situation as in Britton v. Turner (except that guy did 3/4 of the work before walking off the farm).  I agree it seems a little silly: the plaintiff is going to probably end up with reverse damages in this case (since his restitution claim will be completely set off and then some by defendant's claim for breach).  But you know what they say, "Equity abhors a forfeiture."
"I never think of the future.  It comes soon enough."--Albert Einstein