Jaffe refused to pay the bill, and A-1 now seeks payment from Jaffe. Should A-1 prevail? Explain.
A-1 Roofing Co. entered into a written contract with Jaffe to put a new roof on the latter’s residence for $1,800, using a specified type of roofing, and to complete the job without unreasonable delay. A-1 undertook the work within a week thereafter, but when all the roofing material was at the site and the labor 50 percent completed, the premises were totally destroyed by fire caused by lightning. A-1 submitted a bill to Jaffe for $1,200 for materials furnished and labor performed up to the time of the destruction of the premises. Jaffe refused to pay the bill, and A-1 now seeks payment from Jaffe. Should A-1 prevail? Explain.
As a common prevailing rule, the destruction of the job before the execution of the act, if it is contrary to the contract, is going to justify the nonperformance of the contract, if the intended task depends on the continuous life of the product. This rule is applied if the destruction of the performance is unpredictable. This rule is based on the condition of the existence of a specific thing. It is decided by the court whether the restitution is appropriate, from the overhead expenses.
The courts have generally held that when a contract is not feasible to perform because of impossibility or frustration, the parties must then pay for the benefits, which they have gained from the other party. The concept of benefits is extended in such a manner that it also covers the cost spent in performance preparation.
Along with rectifying the unfair benefit at the expense of others, restitution takes care of the fair readjustment of profit and loss beared by the involved parties. The court undertakes readjustment while unreeling a contract that can be employed but not executed.
Yes, Organization A should win the suit. This decision is based on the impossibility of the performance of the task in the contract because of the absence of the continued existence of a specific thing.