A homeowner contracts with a landscaper to completely redesign their garden for $10,000. The contract specifies that the landscaper must use a particular type of rare Japanese maple tree. The landscaper mistakenly uses a similar, but less expensive, common maple tree. The homeowner is upset but admits the garden is otherwise beautifully done and functional. The cost difference between the trees is $500. What is the most appropriate remedy for the homeowner?
- ASpecific performance, requiring the landscaper to replace the tree with the specified rare maple.
- BRescission of the contract and full refund, as the landscaper breached a material term.
- CDamages equal to the cost of replacing the common maple with the rare Japanese maple.
- DDamages equal to the difference in value between the garden with the specified tree and the garden with the common tree ($500).
Show answer & explanationAnswer & explanation
Correct answer: D. Damages equal to the difference in value between the garden with the specified tree and the garden with the common tree ($500).
This is a minor breach. The garden is otherwise functional and beautiful. The appropriate remedy for a minor breach where the cost to repair is disproportionate to the diminution in value (or where the breach is easily quantifiable by value difference) is typically the difference in value. Replacing the tree might be disproportionately expensive or cause undue destruction to the otherwise completed garden.
Why the other options are wrong
- A. Specific performance is usually reserved for unique goods or real estate, not typically for a minor breach in a service contract where damages are adequate.
- B. Rescission is for material breaches that defeat the essential purpose of the contract. Here, the garden is 'beautifully done and functional,' indicating a minor breach.
- C. While cost of replacement can be a measure, for a minor breach where the overall work is satisfactory and the cost of replacement is disproportionate or destructive, diminution in value is preferred.
Damages for Minor Breach
When a party substantially performs a contract but fails to perfectly perform a non-material term, the non-breaching party is entitled to damages, usually measured by the diminution in value.
- Breach is not material; contract's main purpose achieved.
- Non-breaching party must still perform.
- Damages often difference in value, not cost of completion/replacement if disproportionate.
Memory trick: When a contract breaks, the law tries to patch things up, but the patch size depends on the tear.