3. Case Analysis:

a.SalGrafio agreed to paint Gerald Weaver's and Katherine Brewer's house for $5,650. Weaver and Brewer paid for the paint job in installments but stopped payment on the final $1,845 check, claiming that Grafio had breached the contract by doing a poor job. The lower court judge found that the only defect in the paint job was a footprint left on the roof that would cost $50 to repair. How much money, if any, and under what legal theory, did the court allow Grafio to recover for the paint job?Weaver v. Grafio,595 A.2d 983 (DC 1991).

b.Arthur Murray, Inc., and Parker entered a series of contracts under which Arthur Murray agreed to teach Parker how to dance. Under the terms of each agreement, refunds were impossible, and the lessons could not be canceled. After the contracts were entered, Parker suffered a permanent disability that made it physically impossible for him to dance. When Arthur Murray refused to refund any part of Parker's money, he sued to rescind the contracts on grounds of impossibility. Arthur Murray claimed that the non-refund clause must be upheld by the court. Was Arthur Murray correct? Explain.Parker v. Arthur Murray, Inc.,295 N.E.2d 487 (IL 1973).