Correct these answers using the notes below them:

1. Gregory enters into a contract with Harry in which Harry will renovate Gregorys house. They enter into the contract on July 1 and the contract states that it is vital that the work be completed by July 31. Harry does an excellent job but doesnt complete the job until August 14. Due to the delay Gregory had to postpone a big party he was going to have in his house on August 2. It cost Gregory $25,000 to reschedule the party. Gregory sues harry for damages. Will Gregory be successful? What if the contract just had the July 31 completion date but never stated that it was vital and it was customary for these types of jobs to not be completed on time? Would the result change?

Gregory will be successful because of the contract stated it was vital that the work be completed by July 31, which Harry accepted once he signed the contract. Harry did not complete the job by July 31 therefore breaching the contract because he failed to meet the deadline. However, if the contract just had the July 31 completion date but never stated that it was vital and instead that it was customary for these types of jobs to not be completed on time, it would be an anticipator repudiation and in this case, Gregory would not be successful because he accepted the repudiation instead of treating it as an offer to cancel the contract.

2. Mary enters into an agreement to sell 3 cases of vintage wines at $1,500 per bottle to Audrey. The wine sells for $1,500 per bottle because it is extremely rare and almost impossible to locate. Mark offers to pay Mary $2,500 per bottle. Mary calls Audrey to cancel the contract. If you were Audreys attorney, what would you advise her to do?

If I was the Audrey's attorney, I would advise her to sue Mary for the breach of contract for specific performance as this suit can be filed by anyone who suffers losses due to non-performance of contract by the other party without providing the valid reasoning for the breach.

3. Is the contract in question 2 the type of contract that usually contains a liquidated damages clause? Why or why not?

No. because the actual worth of the items is known.

Notes:

1 Why is it a repudiation? Did Harry offer to cancel the contract?

2. Do you need special circumstances to get specific performance? If these were bottles of wine that Audrey could have purchased in any liquor store?

3. So how much are the damages? What amount will put Audrey in the same place as if the contract was performed?