In the Reading Pipe case, the contractor installed the wrong brand of piping throughout the building that was specifically stated in the contract. Once it was discovered, it was far too late in the construction process to replace all the pipes without a substantial extra cost to the contractor. What was the resolution of the case when the contractor was sued by his client for breach of contract?
A) The court ordered the contractor to replace all the pipes to conform with the terms of the contract.
B) The court determined that the breach was not material as it did not frustrate the purpose of the contract.
C) The court determined there was a substantial breach since the contract specifically called for a certain brand of pipes.
D) The court determined that fairness required that the contract reimburse the client half of the value of the contract.

Question

Quizplus · Accepted Answer

The court determined that the breach was not material as it did not frustrate the purpose of the contract, meaning the functionality and purpose of the building were not compromised by the use of a different brand of piping.

In the Reading Pipe Case, the Contractor Installed the Wrong