The Erickson construction company built a concrete water slide for Kenilworth Corporation. The project, known as mountain rapids, opened to the public the day after the job was completed. Kenil Worth refused to play because the cracks did not affect the operation of the water slide. Erikson argued that the doctrine of substantial performance provided for payment of the amount of the contract less an amount to offset the defects. Kenil argued that it only owed Erikson the value for materials used for the work.
A. Would this case be a matter of satisfactory performance or substantial performance?
B. Explain the legal principles that apply to this case and its likely outcome.
C. What implications could this case have on you personally or on others today?