Full access allows:
- Solve all tests online without limits;
- Remove all advertisements on website;
- Adding questions to favorite list;
- Save learning progress;
- Save results of practice exams;
- Watching all wrong answered questions.
23. In an action by the carpenter against the homeowner, which of the following should be the carpenter's measure of recovery?
A carpenter contracted with a homeowner to remodel the homeowner's home for $10,000, the contract price to be paid on completion of the work. On May 29, relying on his expectation that he would finish the work and have the homeowner's payment on June 1, the carpenter contracted to buy a car under the following terms: «$10,000 in cash, if payment is made on June 1; if payment is made thereafter, the price is $12,000.» The carpenter completed the work according to specifications on June 1 and demanded payment from the homeowner on that date. The homeowner, without any excuse, refused to pay. As a result, the carpenter became very excited, suffered a minor heart attack, and incurred related medical expenses of $4,000. The reasonable value of the carpenter's services in remodeling the homeowner's home was $13,000.
Comments (0)
There are no comments at the moment. If you found an error or think question is incorrect, tell everyone about it
Only signed in users can write comments
Signin
B is incorrect. The health issue was not caused by the breach (limiting a tort remedy). Even if the heart attack was caused by the breach, which would be difficult to establish, the medical expenses were unforeseeable at the time the contract was made, and consequential damages must be foreseeable to both parties at the time the contract was formed (limiting a contract remedy).
C is incorrect. The $2,000 for the loss of the bargain on the car was unforeseeable at the time the contract to do the work was made. Consequential damages must be foreseeable to both parties at the time the contract was formed.
D is incorrect. If you have studied remedies in-depth, you may know that there can be a choice of remedies for breach of contract, and that restitution can be both a cause of action or substantive law, and also a remedy. Further, this answer could address a cause of action sounding in torts or contracts because the call of the question is vague. Different states treat restitution as a remedy differently. For example, one state may not allow restitution to exceed $10,000 because the value of the contract has been liquidated if one party has already fully performed, while other states would allow restitution recovery up to $13K since, upon breach by the homeowner, the contractor can disaffirm the contract and request the value conferred. So, D «could» be correct, but it's not the best answer. However, the general rule you should follow is that when the facts show a breach of a valid contract, always start with expectation damages.