Tri Construction Corp: Statement Of Facts Research

Written Briefs
Name
Institution
Tri Construction Corp
Statement of facts
On September 20, 2015, Tri Construction Corp entered a contractual agreement with Glenwood Towns Equestrian Association. The agreement was for Tri to build a state of art thoroughbred racetrack. The agreement terms stated that Tri was to receive a quarterly payment of $50,000,000 million dollars as of date 1 January 2017. The project duration was two years. Tri was to deliver the initial architectural drafts plans of the race track to Glenwood on or before March 1, 2016.
On 1st March 2016, Tri through its lead designer, Hyde completed the plans. Tri had them delivered to Glenwood through its Easy Rider Delivery service. The driver had an accident causing the delivery truck to crash, killing the driver. The plans were destroyed. Tri made a copy and sent it to Glenwood the following day on March 2, 2016. Glenwood objects to the late delivery of the plans and terms it as a breach of contract by Tri. On 4th March 2016, Tri goes ahead and subcontracts electricians and suppliers to work on the race tracks.
On 3rd March 2016, Glenwood enters into another contract with Paragon. Paragon is Tri’s competitor which acquires Tri’s plans through Tri employee Hyde and uses them in Glenwood project. On January 2016, Tri had the plans registered as copyrights. Hyde had a 10-year contract of not working for Tri’s competitors at a similar position after ceasing working with Tri. On 5th March, Hyde resigns from Tri and becomes a lead designer at Paragon.
Issue
May Tri be in a breach of contract for delivering the plans a day after the agreed date by Glenwood? Is there a possibility of Glenwood compensating Tri for damages?
May Tri sue Hyde for breach of contract by resigning and working with Paragon, Tri’s competitors prior to the lapse of the 10 years as agreed between the parties?
Application
The law of contract depicts that conditions to a contract bind the parties to fulfil their contractual responsibility. The doctrine of precise and exact states that parties should honor their contractual obligations. In this case, Tri was to deliver the initial draft not later than 1ST March 2016 but did it on 2nd March 2016. However, the contract law provides that in the case of frustration of contract through the destruction of the subject matter, neither party is to blame. In Taylor v. Caldwell, the defendant hired the plaintiff’s hall for a musical concert. Before the concert day, a fire destroyed the hall. Neither party was to blame. Similarly, Tri was not to blame for the destruction of the delivery truck. This incident was unforeseeable making the contract voidable as the same plans were delivered the following day. Tri may recover the charges incurred ...