Reference no: EM133345470
Case Study: Kitchen Co. is a construction company that specializes in kitchen renovations. Although the bulk of Kitchen Co.'s business was design and construction services, Kitchen Co. also sold and installed top of the line kitchen appliances.
Kip, a pro golfer, wanted Kitchen Co. to renovate his kitchen because of Kitchen Co.'s excellent reputation for high-quality workmanship. Kitchen Co. met with Kip to determine the plans and specifications for the renovation of Kip's kitchen. During their discussion, Kip asked for granite countertops. Kitchen Co. suggested that quartz countertops would be a better choice. They discussed the pros and cons of granite versus quartz and both parties believed they had reached a decision as to which material would be used for the countertops.
Kitchen Co. drafted a contract and presented it to Kip for signing. The terms of the contract contained a detailed description of all the construction services to be performed, building materials, and goods to be provided by Kitchen Co. The total contract price for the renovation was $30,000. The building materials and other goods involved in the renovation comprised 40% of the total contract price.
The written contract specified that the countertops would be "stone." When Kip read the contract, he assumed "stone" meant granite. Kitchen Co. honestly believed that Kip had agreed to quartz countertops. In the kitchen renovation business "stone" countertops means quartz countertops. Both parties signed the written contract.
Kip sues Kitchen Co for installing quartz instead of granite countertops. What are the claims and defenses of the parties? Who would prevail and why?
Kitchen Co. is a construction company that specializes in kitchen renovations. Although the bulk of Kitchen Co.'s business was design and construction services, Kitchen Co. also sold and installed top of the line kitchen appliances.
Kip, a pro golfer, wanted Kitchen Co. to renovate his kitchen because of Kitchen Co.'s excellent reputation for high-quality workmanship. Kitchen Co. met with Kip to determine the plans and specifications for the renovation of Kip's kitchen. During their discussion, Kip asked for granite countertops. Kitchen Co. suggested that quartz countertops would be a better choice. They discussed the pros and cons of granite versus quartz and both parties believed they had reached a decision as to which material would be used for the countertops.
Kitchen Co. drafted a contract and presented it to Kip for signing. The terms of the contract contained a detailed description of all the construction services to be performed, building materials, and goods to be provided by Kitchen Co. The total contract price for the renovation was $30,000. The building materials and other goods involved in the renovation comprised 40% of the total contract price.
The written contract specified that the countertops would be "stone." When Kip read the contract, he assumed "stone" meant granite. Kitchen Co. honestly believed that Kip had agreed to quartz countertops. In the kitchen renovation business "stone" countertops means quartz countertops. Both parties signed the written contract.
Question: Kip sues Kitchen Co for installing quartz instead of granite countertops. What are the claims and defenses of the parties? Who would prevail and why?