Question

CASE 8 Lui was a qualified journeyman electrician who was employed by a municipal public-utilities commission on a full-time basis. On weekends and evenings, he occasion- ally assisted friends who were constructing their own homes by installing their electrical wiring for them. In most cases he did the installation work gratuitously, but from time to time he would be given a sum of money in appreciation of his services. One day, while on vacation at his summer cottage, a neighbouring cottage owner who was renovating his cottage approached Lui and inquired if he might be interested in taking on the job of rewiring the cottage. Lui thought about the offer, then agreed to do so, and a price was agreed upon. Lui would do the work and supply the materials (estimated at $950) for $1,400. A few days later, Lui purchased the necessary materials and proceeded to rewire the cottage. Upon completion of the job, Lui presented his account for $1.550, which represented the cost of materials at and his labour at $450. Lui's neighbour refused to pay the account, insist- ing that the agreed price was $1,400. Lui's argument was that the $950 price quoted was only an estimate, and subject to change. The only firm part of his quote, he maintained, was his labour charge of $450. The two parties continued to argue over the price for several months, and eventually Lui instituted legal proceedings to collect the account. Identify and discuss the legal issues that might arise in this case that could affect Lui's right to recover payment. If you were called upon to act as counsel for the defendant, what inquiries would you make?

Answer 1

The legal issues/Point to prove in the case are:

a) To take a note whether agreement was in written and signed shape.

b) Has Lui received and kept the purchase bills for the materials.

c) Whether the words like estimate and subject to change are mentioned in the agreement.

d) Whether Lui had the work completion and satisfaction certificate from his neighbor.

If the answer of the above issues is yes, then Lui’s right to recover payment is protected.

Being the counsel for Lui, we would like to inquire about the above issues so raised to prove the point of Lui.

===========================