Contracted person R J. C. Surge Service, a temporary plumber company, to fix a halt along her house's sewer pipe. The "snake" gadget of the plumbing service, used to clear the line driving to the most drain, was trapped in the underground pipe. The firm excavated a portion of the sewer line into the terrace of Person R to drain it. The business finds this inside the handle various spills in a corroded, flawed water pipe that ran parallel to the sewer line. To follow open directions, it was appropriate to repair the water pipe, of a kind not endorsed for such benefit, either at that point or later, when the yard would be exhumed again. The plumbing company continued the repair of the water drain. While Richardson reviewed the day-to-day work of the company and voiced no concern at the additional work involved in the supplanting of the water pipe, she refused payment of any portion of the entire charge after the company completed their entire operation. J. C. Surge Company sued Person R For the labour and fabric costs, it had outfitted. To discuss: The claims should be of support to J.C. The flood claim for the labour and material costs it had furnished.

Question

Want to see the full answer?

Answer 1

Question

Chapter 9, Problem 1TS

Summary Introduction

Case summary:

Contracted person R J. C. Surge Service, a temporary plumber company, to fix a halt along her house's sewer pipe. The "snake" gadget of the plumbing service, used to clear the line driving to the most drain, was trapped in the underground pipe. The firm excavated a portion of the sewer line into the terrace of Person R to drain it. The business finds this inside the handle various spills in a corroded, flawed water pipe that ran parallel to the sewer line. To follow open directions, it was appropriate to repair the water pipe, of a kind not endorsed for such benefit, either at that point or later, when the yard would be exhumed again. The plumbing company continued the repair of the water drain. While Richardson reviewed the day-to-day work of the company and voiced no concern at the additional work involved in the supplanting of the water pipe, she refused payment of any portion of the entire charge after the company completed their entire operation. J. C. Surge Company sued Person R

For the labour and fabric costs, it had outfitted.

To discuss: The claims should be of support to J.C. The flood claim for the labour and material costs it had furnished.

Expert Solution & Answer

Want to see the full answer?

Check out a sample textbook solution

See solution

Students have asked these similar questions

Tube Art was involved in moving a reader board sign to a new location. Tube Art’s service manager and another employee went to the proposed site and took photographs and measurements. Later, a Tube Art employee laid out the exact size and location for the excavation by marking a four-by-four-foot-square on the asphalt surface with yellow paint. The dimensions of the hole, including its depth of six feet, were indicated with spray paint inside the square. After the layout was painted on the asphalt, Tube Art engaged a backhoe operator, Richard F. Redford, to dig the hole. Redford began digging in the early evening hours at the location designated by Tube Art. At approximately 9:30 P.M., the bucket of Redford’s backhoe struck a small natural gas pipeline. After examining the pipe and finding no indication of a break or leak, he concluded that the line was not in use and left the site. Shortly before 2:00 A.M. on the following day, an explosion and fire occurred in the building serviced…

John Campbell, an employee of Manhattan Construction Company, claims to have injured his back as a result of a fall while repairing the roof at one of the Eastview apartment buildings. He filed a lawsuit against Doug Reynolds, the owner of Eastview Apartments, asking for damages of $1,500,000. John claims that the roof had rotten sections and that his fall could have been prevented if Mr. Reynolds had told Manhattan Construction about the problem. Mr. Reynolds notified his insurance company, Allied Insurance, of the lawsuit. Allied must defend Mr. Reynolds and decide what action to take regarding the lawsuit.Some depositions and a series of discussions took place between both sides. As a result, John Campbell offered to accept a settlement of $750,000. Thus, one option is for Allied to pay John $750,000 to settle the claim. Allied is also considering making John a counteroffer of $400,000 in the hope that he will accept a lesser amount to avoid the time and cost of going to trial.…

Martha invites John to come to lunch. Though she knows that her private road is dangerous to travel, having been heavily eroded by recent rains, Martha doesn’t warn John of the condition, reasonably believing that he will notice the deep ruts and exercise sufficient care. While John is driving over, his attention is diverted from the road by the screaming of his child, who has been stung by a bee. He fails to notice the condition of the road, hits a rut, and skids into a tree. If John is not contributorily negligent, is Martha liable to John?