Daniel claims that he is entitled to payment in full (b) because Steven has not shown that he has sustained any damage. Discuss each contention and decide.

Jump to Solution
Category:

Daniel claims that he is entitled to payment in full (b) because Steven has not shown that he has sustained any damage. Discuss each contention and decide.

0
0

Daniel agreed that he would erect an apartment building for Steven for $12 million and that Daniel would suffer a deduction of $12,000 per day for every day of delay. Daniel was twenty days late in finishing the job, losing ten days because of a strike and ten days because the material suppliers were late in furnishing materials. Daniel claims that he is entitled to payment in full (a) because the agreement as to $12,000 a day is a penalty.

Daniel agreed that he would erect an apartment building for Steven for $12 million and that Daniel would suffer a deduction of $12,000 per day for every day of delay. Daniel was twenty days late in finishing the job, losing ten days because of a strike and ten days because the material suppliers were late in furnishing materials. Daniel claims that he is entitled to payment in full (b) because Steven has not shown that he has sustained any damage. Discuss each contention and decide.

Explanation & AnswerSolution by a verified expert

Explanation

The damages of $12 million in context to delay in construction of apartment are right because these damages are foreseeable and have certain value that is calculated on a daily basis until delay. The full amount of damages considering the apartment cost and real damage cost cannot be calculated due to being in the period of construction.

Verified Answer

The claiming of damages of $12 million is correct because that is decided on the basis of the estimated delay and required to be levied on a daily basis.Apart from this, the apartment cost and actual cost of damages are not certain.

Explanation

The provisions of the liquidated damages have a principle that states that the injured party is not required to provide the evidences for the damages done to them and recover the damages from other party.For this reason, Individual S has no condition for the same.

Verified Answer

Individual S is not bound to prove the damages to recover from Individual D because there is no necessity to prove the liquidated damages under the provision.

Purchase this answer to view it. $5
Login/Sign up for free, load your wallet instantly using PayPal or cards and purchase this solution to view it.

Looking for the solution to this or another homework question?

If you need essay writing assistance or homework solutions, log in or sign up for a free account and ask our writers any homework question.