DB3 - HOMEWORK SOLUTIONS PDF

Preview

Summary

HOMEWORK SOLUTIONS...

Description

The concept of substantial performance permits a party to be discharged from a contract even though the party has not fully performed her or his obligations according to the contract's terms. Is this fair? Why or why not? What policy interests are at issue here? If you have come across this scenario in the real world, please share your experience and impressions. To qualify as substantial performance, the performance must not vary greatly from the performance promised in the contract, and it must create substantially the same benefits as those promised in the contract [1]. This is a fair doctrine as it protects the contract bearers from breach of contract suits due to performance that was slightly varied from the performance promised in the contract [1]. Unimportant omissions, variance, or defects in performance after the contract has been performed and can be easily compensated for by awarding damages then the contract will likely be found to have been substantially performed [1]. The policy interests at stake are commercial interests of the seller and the buyer. I have come across this scenario in the real world. I paid a friend to do body work on my car and he performed what we agreed to but did some of the work improperly. I did not know at the time that the paint was to be fully removed from a dent before filling it with body filler and he filled the dents over the old paint. This can lead to premature failure of the body filler. We agreed to a lower payment as the performance was substantial. References [1] Miller, R. L. (2017). Business law today: The essentials. Australia: Cengage Learning....