Cengage Advantage Books: Business Law 9th Edition by Arnold Goldman ,William Sigismond

Exercise 9

Montgomery hired Christa Construction Company to build her a summer residence in a popular summer resort area several hundred miles from her home but near a town where Christa Construction was located. After several meetings, Christa prepared a blueprint that contained all the specifications requested by Montgomery, right down to the high-quality brand of pipes that were to be installed throughout the residence. Montgomery then made a substantial down payment, consisting of more than half of the price for building the residence quoted to her by Christa. Upon completion of the summer residence, Montgomery discovered that Christa did not use the brand of pipes that Montgomery had requested because that particular brand was not available. However, Christa did purchase and use an equally good brand (same quality and strength, and the same cost). When Montgomery discovered the switch had been made, she refused to pay the balance due on the summer residence until Christa totally replaced the pipes throughout the summer residence. Christa said that the brand of pipes she requested still was not available and that he acted in good faith as an experienced builder when he purchased the pipes that he did. He sued for the remaining payment of $50,000 due, claiming that it would be a major project to replace all the pipes embedded in the walls and in other areas of the house where the pipes had been installed.
Questions
1. What is the legal effect of Christa not using the correct brand of pipes requested by Montgomery?
2. Does Montgomery have any cause for legal action against Christa? 3. Do you see any unfairness in Montgomery's refusal to pay the remaining balance due to Christa for the construction costs for the summer residence?