a) False. The intention of the contract is for G to remodel P 's office. As long as G did a substantial amount of work in good faith it can recover the work done.
b) True. Substantial performance is performance satisfying the essence of the contract in this case to remodel an office. G was able to paint and do all necessary constructions. However, P refused them from continuing due to minor objects. G should be given the value of work owed to them.
c) False. Purchasing the wrong minor accessories for a remodeling job would not be a material breach. Material breach may be using non-standard wall material, wrong colored paint, etc.
d) False. See b
Refer to the case Dickson v Moran (344 So2d 102).
1) Defendant contracted with plaintiff to build a house for him.
2) After some work performed by plaintiff, defendant refused plaintiff's service any longer. Plaintiff sued for recovery of cost and placed a lien on defendant's property. Defendant counterclaimed for damages cost by plaintiff.
3) Trial court cancelled lien and denied claims. All parties appealed
Relevant Terms, Laws, and Cases
Substantial performance - states that as long as contract is performed sufficiently to a degree that satisfies the intention of the contract, it can be enforced.
Appeals court affirmed the decision.
Plaintiff is unable to recover under substantial performance. Court argued to show substantial performance, the work completed must be "usable for the purpose which it was intended". The plaintiff had only did 25% - 40% of the work required hence the house was still unusable. The court also found that the defendant was right for terminating plaintiff due to the numerous defects found during construction; a breach of contract by plaintiff.
The designer may not be able to discharge contract due to the event that their genius employee was killed. The contract to design may not have involved employee and designer can't completely rely on one employee to complete the design. For example, if the employee wasn't killed he may have quit, took leave to take care of family, or went to jail, etc. Even if the employee was still alive and working he may not have came up with an idea for the design, in any case, the designer can't enter in a contract with this assumption that the employee can guarantee success.