The renovation contract covers the quality of workmanship that Grocery, Inc. agreed to when hiring Company A.
The subcontractor B used by A did not meet the criteria of the contract.
Additionally, Company A unilaterally decided that to finish the job was impossible.
In actuality, Company A overscheduled construction jobs during a six-month time period which was a preventable situation that is the fault of Company A management, not an unforeseen circumstance subject to commercial impracticability.
Therefore Grocery, Inc. had the right to an injunction as the change in crew was a material change, which was not under substantial performance in good faith subject to …show more content…
This is when “one party (Company A) agrees to render a substitute performance in the future, known as accord, and the party (Grocery, Inc.) promises to accept that substitute performance in discharge of the existing performance obligation” (Melvin, 2011).
Grocery, Inc. contracted with company A to renovate the store. G
Grocery. Inc. was not aware of the subcontract by Company A to Company B.
Specific/Complete performance – Company A was responsible to complete the performance in accordance with the specifications set forth in the contract between Company A and Grocery, Inc. Company A failed to exercise due care by allowing Company B to perform poor workmanship.
Company A is responsible for the poor workmanship of Company B. Company A breached the contract by substituting the goods and services that Company A guaranteed with the goods and services of Company B. A material breach occurred when Company A didn’t gain substantial benefits from the renovation. An addendum could have been created to cover the commercial impossibility of Company A, which would have allowed Grocery, Inc. to consider new terms of the contract. In this case, Company A did not follow all the elements required of the contract, therefore, Grocery, Inc. …show more content…
Masterpiece Construction is justified to seek help contractually if no prior stipulation of duty delegations was established within the original contract.
Build them to fall’s workmanship, has become an issue with Grocery, Inc. due to differences in the design of the building. The delegation of duties argument can be contested by Grocery, Inc. justifiably due to the way Masterpiece Construction carried out its duties in which comparable or of the same craftsmanship of comparable companies. Build them to fall’s substandard build execution, has now created a situation that degrades and demeans Masterpiece Constructions creditability.
Authority to Subcontract the work by Build them to fall, from Masterpiece Construction was not granted by Grocery Inc. and as such Masterpiece Construction cannot place a claim based upon commercial impracticability as this action of assuming additional work was done post contract with Grocery, Inc.
It is believed the demand for specific performance on behalf of Grocery, Inc. would be rejected by the court based upon the fact that construction falls under the category of a service-related