Cracking Concrete $("$Cracking$")$ bid a job based upon plans and drawings provided by Super Stores $("$Super$")$ for expansion of an existing retail super store. The broken lines on the plans indicated, without explicit definition, the areas that were to remain unchanged; the areas to be demolished and replaced by new flat work, and areas where new flat work was to be poured without the need for demolition. After Cracking Concrete poured the flat work, Super Stores called and said it wanted more concrete poured in an area they had finished demolishing. Cracking poured the flat work in response to the telephone call $($without preparing a "change order" or any other written amendments to the contract$)$ and billed Super Stores an additional $$180,000.$ Super Stores refused to pay, saying the cost of the additional area poured was clearly included in the original bid amount. They said that when they made the telephone call they did not intend to order more concrete but were simply reminding Cracking Concrete to pour the amount of concrete contemplated in the original contract. Which statement or statements could accurately apply to this situationAAAhe principle of construing vagaries against the drafter of the contract is particularly important in situations where plans and specifications become part of the contract.

The fact that Cracking's conduct and communication included promptly sending Super a bill for the additional flat work supports the claim for more money.

Cracking is likely to win it's claim for more money.

Super is likely to defeat Cracking's claim for more money.

Cracking Concrete $("$Cracking$")$ bid a job based upon plans and drawings provided by Super Stores $("$Super$")$ for expansion of an existing retail super store. The broken lines on the plans indicated, without explicit definition, the areas that were to remain unchanged; the areas to be demolished and replaced by new flat work, and areas where new flat work was to be poured without the need for demolition. After Cracking Concrete poured the flat work, Super Stores called and said it wanted more concrete poured in an area they had finished demolishing. Cracking poured the flat work in response to the telephone call $($without preparing a "change order" or any other written amendments to the contract$)$ and billed Super Stores an additional $$180,000.$ Super Stores refused to pay, saying the cost of the additional area poured was clearly included in the original bid amount. They said that when they made the telephone call they did not intend to order more concrete but were simply reminding Cracking Concrete to pour the amount of concrete contemplated in the original contract. Which statement or statements could accurately apply to this situation?

The principle of construing vagaries against the drafter of the contract is particularly important in situations where plans and specifications become part of the contract.

The fact that Cracking's conduct and communication included promptly sending Super a bill for the additional flat work supports the claim for more money.

Cracking is likely to win it's claim for more money.

Super is likely to defeat Cracking's claim for more money.

Cracking Concrete $("$Cracking$")$ bid a job based upon plans and drawings provided by Super Stores $("$Super$")$ for expansion of an existing retail super store. The broken lines on the plans indicated, without explicit definition, the areas that were to remain unchanged; the areas to be demolished and replaced by new flat work, and areas where new flat work was to be poured without the need for demolition. After Cracking Concrete poured the flat work, Super Stores called and said it wanted more concrete poured in an area they had finished demolishing. Cracking poured the flat work in response to the telephone call $($without preparing a "change order" or any other written amendments to the contract$)$ and billed Super Stores an additional $$180,000.$ Super Stores refused to pay, saying the cost of the additional area poured was clearly included in the original bid amount. They said that when they made the telephone call they did not intend to order more concrete but were simply reminding Cracking Concrete to pour the amount of concrete contemplated in the original contract. Which statement or statements could accurately apply to this situation?

The principle of construing vagaries against the drafter of the contract is particularly important in situations where plans and specifications become part of the contract.

The fact that Cracking's conduct and communication included promptly sending Super a bill for the additional flat work supports the claim for more money.

Cracking is likely to win it's claim for more money.

Super is likely to defeat Cracking's claim for more money.