1. A dissenting opinion in this case pointed out that JY’s failing to use the correct pipe was grossly negligent and, thus, JY should bear the cost of reinstalling the Reading pipe. Does that strike you as convincing? Why or why not?
2. If Kent had a vested interest in the use of Reading pipe (suppose Kent was the heir to the Reading pipe fortune), what condition could he have inserted in the agreement that ensured the use of Reading brand pipe?

Jacob contracted to build a home for Kent which included the use of Reading brand pipe. Just before construction was completed, Kent discovered that through an oversight, some of the pipe used was not of Reading manufacture (though of comparable quality and price). Kent directed Jacobs to remove the non-Reading pipe; however, the pipe was already encased in the walls and, thus, costly demolition would have been necessary to repair the mistake. Jacob completed construction but refused to fix the pipe mistake and Kent refused to pay the remaining balance on the contract.