Question

Betty owns a in an area where all agriculture requires irrigation. Art owns a well-drilling business. Betty needed no additional irrigation water, but in January 2018, she asked Art on what terms he would drill a well near her house to supply better tasting drinking water than the County water she has been using for years. Art said charge Betty $10 per foot. Art said that he would drill to a maximum depth of 600 feet, which is the deepest his rig could reach. Betty said, “OK, if you guarantee June 1 completion.” Art agreed and asked for $3500 in advance, with any additional further payment or refund to be made on completion. Betty said,” OK,” and paid Art $3500.

Art started to drill on May 1. He had reached a depth of 200 feet on May 10 when his drill struck rock and broke, plugging the hole. It had cost Art $12 per foot to drill this 200 feet. Art said he would not charge Betty for drilling the useless hole, but he would have to start a new well close by, and could not promise its completion before July 1.Betty, annoyed by Art’s failure, refused to let Art start another well and on June 1, she contracted with Carlos to drill a well. Carlos agreed to drill to a maximum depth of 350 feet for $12 per foot. To which Betty agreed, but Carlos could not start drilling until October 1. He completed drilling and struck water at 300 feet on October 30.In July, Betty sued Art seeking to recover her $3500, plus the $4500 paid to Carlos. In her suit against Art, who will win and why? Do a complete IRAC analysis of all of the above legal issues.

Please use the IRAC (I = Issue, R = Rule, A = Analysis, C = Conclusion) in your answer. Thanks!

Answer 1

ISSUE: Betty paid Art $ 3500 advance to drill a well, which could supply drinking water on her agricultural land. After drilling 200 feet, the drill struck a rock and broke. It cost Art $ 12 for 200 feet. He told Betty he won’t charge for the useless hole and would drill another hole for her but could not meet the committed deadline of June 1. Betty got annoyed and hired Carlos to drill a hole at $ 12 per foot for 350-foot hole. Carlos stuck water at 300 feet. Betty sues Art for recovery of $ 3500 paid as advance and $ 4500 paid to Carlos for drilling the hole.

RULE: Art had agreed to drill a hole for Betty within June 1. He had also taken an advance for the task and agreed to the payment terms of $ 10 per foot and a deadline of June 1. He has taken a sum of $ 3500 as a consideration so he is bound under contract to drill the hole for Betty within the agreed time lines.

ANALYSIS: The hole was to be drilled in $ 6000 within June 1. Betty had paid a sum of $ 3500 as advance.

The case can be discussed on the following parameters:

• Impossibility: In a construction contract it is normal to have some ambiguity as he broke his drill at 200 feet and was not in a position to meet the deadline of June 1. Art can state that it was a temporary impossibility and Betty should have allowed him to complete the task after his drill was back in action. He can contest that he should have been given the option if time element a snot critical.
• Material alteration: If time is critical then Betty can ask Art to refund $ 1500 which is the difference between what she agreed to pay Art and what she paid Carlos. The time is important hence she got Carlos to drill the hole. Second Betty can also prove that the site of the hole was chosen by Art hence he has taken the risk of failing to find the water. However, in case Art can prove that June 1 is not critical as it involved only drinking water, which is not a critical issue.
• Art can state that he was not allowed to access the land and complete the contract post the breakdown of the drill and he failed to meet his contractual obligation. It will put Betty in breach of contract for not allowing Art to complete the contract.

CONCLUSION:

• Art can prove he was not allowed to complete his contractual obligation. This will show that Art was prevented from fulfilling the contractual obligations. The court will excuse his performance.
• Betty can prove that timing was critical to meet the contractual obligation. Betty can sue for breach and damages.
• Betty will be entitled to damages to cover the cost of $ 4500 paid to Carlos. She will be paid $ 1500 which is the amount of consideration paid to Carlos less amount agreed with Art ie. $ 4500 less $ 3000. Plus she would get a refund of $ 500 which is the excess amount paid as the water was found in 300 feet. Art also will refund the entire $ 3000 as he said he would not charge for the useless hole.