A partnership of doctors in Billings, Montana, sought to build a larger office building. They decided to finance this project using industrial revenue bonds under a complex provision of the Internal Revenue Code. They hired Peat Marwick to do the required financial work. The deal was all set to close when it was discovered that the accountants had made an error in structuring the deal. As a result, the partnership was forced to pay a significantly higher rate of interest. When the partnership sued Peat for breach of contract, the accounting firm asked the court to dismiss the claim on the grounds that the client could only sue in tort. Peat argued that it had performed its duties under the contract. The statute of limitations had expired for a tort case but not for a contract case. Should the doctors' case be dismissed?