In Naples v. Keystone Building and Development Corp. in which the Naples sued Keystone for the cost of repairing major problems in the house Keystone built for the Naples, the state supreme court held that:
A) the Naples should be awarded the full amount necessary to restore them to the position they would have been in had the contract been properly performed
B) the Naples need not be awarded the full amount necessary to restore them to the position they would have been in had the contract been properly performed
C) the Naples should be awarded the half the amount necessary to restore them to the position they would have been in had the contract been properly performed
D) the Naples should be awarded 20% of the full amount necessary to restore them to the position they would have been in had the contract been properly performed
E) none of the other choices are correct

Question

Quizplus · Accepted Answer

The state supreme court held that the Naples should be awarded the full amount necessary to restore them to the position they would have been in had the contract been properly performed. This is known as the doctrine of cost of performance or the benefit-of-the-bargain rule, which requires the breaching party to pay for the cost of repairing or completing the work as specified in the contract.

In Naples V