IRAC Method - Various Lawsuits - Law Assignment Help

Assignment Task :

DevCo entered into a written contract with BuildCo to construct a 10-story residential apartment complex to be completed by March 1, 2020 in return for $20,000,000. Detailed architectural plans for the building were supplied by DevCo, and the contract stipulated that any significant deviation from the plans would require BuildCo to pay a minimum of $6,000,000 damages. BuildCo entered into written contracts with PourCo and BlockCo under which PourCo agreed to construct the foundation for the building for $300,000, and BlockCo agreed to provide all the concrete blocks to be used in the construction of the building (expected to be 100,000 blocks) for $600,000. While the hole for the foundation was being dug, the price of cement unexpectedly increased by 60%.
BlockCo informed BuildCo that it was refusing to perform its contract, as it was no longer profitable for it to do so. BuildCo initiated legal proceedings against BlockCo, but in the meantime had to find a company to finish the work. PourCo told BuildCo that its contract was also now unprofitable, but said that it could complete the work if it was paid an extra 20% for the job. PourCo and BuildCo signed an amendment to their contract under which BuildCo agreed to pay
$360,000 to PourCo in return for it completing the foundation as agreed in the original contract. PourCo also offered to supply half of the concrete blocks that were originally to be supplied by BlockCo, in return for $330,000, in order to give BuildCo the time to find an alternative block supplier. BuildCo and PourCo signed a written contract, under which, BuildCo would order the concrete blocks as needed, and PourCo would supply up to 50,000 blocks in return for $330,000.
As the project proceeded, PourCo supplied all 50,000 blocks, and then continued to supply blocks to BuildCo as it ordered them, eventually supplying 100,000 blocks. Due to the increased expenses caused by the increase in the price of concrete, BuildCo began to look for ways to decrease the cost of the building. It noted that the architectural plans called for very expensive insulating glass to be used for all windows, and an expensive high-tech A/C system. The reason that the plans had called for the special glass and A/C system was that DevCo planned to get the building certified by the state government as exceeding the highest standards for energy efficiency, allowing it to market the units in the building at a very high premium to environmentally conscious wealthy customers. BuildCo was not aware of DevCo’s plans, and it calculated that using a cheaper glass and A/C system would save it $1,500,000 in material costs. Accordingly, BuildCo decided to use those cheaper materials in the construction. When the building was completed, DevCo inspected
it and discovered the ways in which BuildCo had deviated from the architectural plans. It told BuildCo that it has breached the contract, refused to pay, and began a lawsuit for breach of contract.

BuildCo acknowledged the deviation, but argued that DevCo was still obliged to pay for the building, so BuildCo counter-sued DevCo for payment under the contract for the construction of the building. DevCo planned to argue the following: due to the nature of the breach, it should be excused from paying for the building at all, or alternatively, it should be allowed to subtract $6,000,000 from the price reflecting the damages that had been agreed in the contract, or
alternatively, it should be allowed to subtract $3,000,000 from the price, which would be the cost of replacing the windows and the A/C system with the one called for in the architectural plans. BuildCo planned to argue that DevCo should only subtract the difference in market value between the building that BuildCo had constructed, and the super-efficient one that DevCo had requested, which, according to two property experts BuildCo had consulted with, was only $1,000,000. Due to the lawsuits and the delay in getting paid, BuildCo was short on cash, and so it decided to collect whatever money it could, and to minimize its payments to its subcontractors. It resolved to sue BlockCo for its breach of the contract to supply blocks, and told PourCo that it would only pay $300,000 for the construction of the foundation, and would only pay the $330,000 for the 50,000 blocks supplied under the written contract, arguing that the other 50,000 blocks were not covered by any contract. PourCo resolved to sue for payment of the full $360,000 for the foundation, and to sue for payment of $630,000 to cover the 100,000 blocks it had supplied.
 

1. Discuss, using the IRAC method, what the likely outcome of the various lawsuits described above would be.

This Law Assignment has been solved by our Law Experts at My Uni Paper. Our Assignment Writing Experts are efficient to provide a fresh solution to this question. We are serving more than 10000+ Students in Australia, UK & US by helping them to score HD in their academics. Our Experts are well trained to follow all marking rubrics & referencing style.

Be it a used or new solution, the quality of the work submitted by our assignment experts remains unhampered. You may continue to expect the same or even better quality with the used and new assignment solution files respectively. There’s one thing to be noticed that you could choose one between the two and acquire an HD either way. You could choose a new assignment solution file to get yourself an exclusive, plagiarism (with free Turnitin file), expert quality assignment or order an old solution file that was considered worthy of the highest distinction.