Subcontracting is the entrusting of partial or all of the contractors’ duties or responsibilities to a subcontractor. Subcontractors are regarded independent and answerable to their own subcontractors. In this case, Foodmart is likely to win for the breach of contract that has been committed by their contractor Masterpiece. In a contract, the main contractor should acquaint the client with all the information and necessary details that may be required by the client (McGuinness 2007). Before final decisions are made with regard to a contract, the essentials of a valid contract like offer, acceptance, consideration, and capacity must be in existence (Killion & Dempski 2000). The decision to make Masterpiece construction liable is informed by the following reasons. To begin with, the failure by Masterpiece to disclose the subcontractor to Foodmart was not in itself in good spirit. In contract law, the subcontractor is supposed to be approved by Foodmart to help facilitate payment and other communication that may be necessary (McGuinness 2007).
We will write a custom Case Study on Contract Law: Foodmart Inc. vs. Masterpiece Construction specifically for you
301 certified writers online
To make the matters serious Builder construction failed to adhere to the required standards of the client making the work below quality. The client will therefore have the right to repudiate the contract on the basis that the terms of the agreements have not been upheld (McGuinness 2007). Another reason why the plaintiff is likely to win the case is the fact that the client has delayed. The defense of commercial impracticability may only be valid in instances where there are frustrating factors like substantial price increase or natural factors like weather that might have frustrated the process (Killion & Dempski 2000). Foodmart can argue that the period has lapsed and are therefore not obliged to honor the contract. The fact that Masterpiece construction was in a position to secure more contracts is not sufficient to make the company subcontract to another that cannot ensure quality standards. Foodmark can therefore peg their argument on this and claim compensation for the losses suffered. Foodmark’s case file for an injunction is likely to be administered in the court ruling as a means of ensuring that the contract breach is terminated. An injunction is also likely to be made to stop the subcontractor from further doing a poor-quality work (McGuinness 2007).
The remedy of specific performance is instituted in instance that other monetary damages cannot restore all the parties to their pre-contract period. The court therefore is likely to rule in favor of the plaintiff demand of getting quality service and penalties that are caused because of the delays made. There are various defenses for contract formation and enforcement. The failure of parties to conform to the essentials of the contract can be taken as serious reasons to make the contract unenforceable (Killion & Dempski 2000). The presence of vitiating factors like failure of legal capacity, consideration, duress, or illegality of the contract will make the contract unenforceable. Mistakes that are made at times of making contracts are also a defense for a contract. At enforcement, the parties can claim factors like frustration of material matters to be a reason for breach of contract (Killion & Dempski 2000). For instance in the case provided, Masterpiece can claim that the changes in the conditions of agreements like the prices had changed and therefore lacked enough resources to discharge their obligation as agreed. In conclusion, the legality of a contract depends on the adherence to the essentials of a contract. Both parties to a contract have rights and obligations that they can explore to claim defenses when legal cases arise.