First, please read the facts carefully and identify all possible legal issues in the case. For example, Party A did XXX which will lead to YYY, thus Party A may lose the case because...// the case have a misrepresentation issue since Party A did Xx that lead Party B think Yy, then it cause B to making decision on Zz.

Secondly, do the identification the legal issues for each of the party involve. (Note: please do focus on issue spotting).

Lastly, argue further and give an example on if a factor change what the result would be for example, "Who would win the lawsuit (and why) if A, instead of acting as she did in the problem, [failed to send the notice] [wrote B urging her to perform] [never responded] [whatever]?" (Note: you may change the factor in any way you want.

Hypo facts are vague which for the purpose for you to change it, for example you may say "if the system instead on date X the warranty still works and Party A have legal stand to ask for remedy - law says party may require remedy"

HYPO 9

This case arises from the renovation of a multi-building apartment complex (the "Project") near theUniversity of North Carolina at Charlotte ("UNC Charlotte") and a dispute over alleged floor truss defects that developed shortly after the Project's completion. O was the owner of the Project; C was the general contractor.

O and C entered into a contract (the "General Contract") by which C agreed to renovate an apartmentcomplex on land owned by O near the UNC campus. Acting as the general contractor, C entered into agreements with several subcontractors to facilitate the construction of the Project. C enlisted T to provide and install wood framing, including floor trusses, for the Project and to provide the labor necessary to complete such work.

As construction proceeded, it was discovered the ceiling of the Project was sagging and cracking. Afteran inspection, a defect in the floor trusses found above the sagging ceiling.

O that it believed the already-discovered truss defects were a sample of a systemic, Project-wide, truss defect problem. That same day, O reached out to S and asked if S would be able to fix the truss work on the Project if C did not. O informed C that it believed "the extent of truss failure [was] a material breach and default under" the General Contract but that O did not want to terminate the contract if possible.

On Friday, May 29, 2015, O sent C a letter via e-mail informing C that O needed repair work to begin no later than June 2, 2015 and that C would be required to provide a repair plan by no later than the following Monday, June 1, 2015 and to complete the work by August 15, the beginning of classes at UNCC. O also informed C that O was in the process of procuring repair work from S, who had committed to meeting the August 15 deadline. O said it intended to hold C fully responsible for the cost of any repairs.

The following Monday, June 1, 2015, C sent O a letter objecting to the repair plan deadline O had imposed. C stated it remained open to serving as a "construction manager" in relation to any remedial work but also affirmed that it could not "commit to complete the work in [the timeframe] demanded."

On June 3, 2015, O issued a notice to S that it should proceed with the Project-wide truss work. O and Sexecuted a written contract on June 17, 2015.

On at least one occasion, C sent representatives out to the Project to perform further investigationswhile S was working. According to C, O informed C's 's representatives that S would be handling the repair work and that there was no need for C to be there.

S's work was completed, and county inspector approval was obtained by August 19, 2015. Students were returning to campus. To keep the students who already had leases at the Project but who couldn't yet occupy the Project, O spent $906,847.74 to house the students temporarily in hotels and to give each of them a $500 prepaid gift card and a temporary relocation stipend of $140 per week, totaling $500,446.46.

C sued O to recover allegedly outstanding payments due from O for its construction work on the terms of the parties' agreement. C focused on the language of the agreement providing that in the event of substantial defect, O is to "give such notice promptly after discovery of the condition," and stated "[i]f the Contractor fails to correct nonconforming Work within a reasonable time during that period after receipt of notice from the Owner ..., the Owner may correct it."

O responded by arguing that C cannot shield itself with the General Contract because C, in fact, was thefirst party to materially breach the agreement's terms by anticipatory repudiation. Because C repudiatedthe General Contract, O asserts C has no grounds on which to argue it was wrongfully deprived of its rights under the contract.