Hillerich had to elect one or the other. Explain whether Williams is correct in this assertion.
Billy Williams Builders and Developers (Williams) entered into a contract with Hillerich under which Williams agreed to sell to Hillerich a certain lot and to construct on it a house according to submitted plans and specifications. The house built by Williams was defectively constructed. Hillerich brought suit for specific performance of the contract and for damages resulting from the defective construction and delay in performance. Williams argued that Hillerich was not entitled to have both specific performance and damages for breach of the contract because the remedies were inconsistent and Hillerich had to elect one or the other. Explain whether Williams is correct in this assertion.
Individual H is going to be eligible to claim damages from Individual W because at the time of the signing of the contract, there was a presence of the promise to deliver the house according to the planned and submitted designs. So, the buyer has proof to show the negligence of duties if they got a differently-built house.
Besides that, it is not a case of rendering of personal services only. It is also a real estate case. So, according to the restatement law, the specific performance of the contract is going to be granted.
Individual W contention is wrong in this case because the damages have a certain value and special performance is applicable only in real estate cases under the restatement law.