AaBbCCD AaBbCCD( AaBbCCD( 1 Normal 11 No Spac... Heading 1 Heading 2 Title Subtitle Subtle Em... Emphasis Styles FACT SCENARIO B_(Questions 5-8): Geddy Construction (GC) has a written contract with Owner for the construction and renovation of a medical facility. The contract is divided into two phases. Phase I is for the construction of a new medical building. Phase II is for the renovation of an existing facility. GC is required to achieve substantial completion of Phase I within 540 calendar days. The contract does not establish a timeframe or deadline for the substantial completion of Phase II, nor does it expressly state that time is of the essence. The contract does, however, provide for liquidated damages in the amount of $1,500 per day in the event GC fails to achieve substantial completion of Phase I within 540 calendar days. Upon receiving notice to proceed from Owner, GC immediately mobilizes at the jobsite to begin construction. Although requested to do so, GC never submits a construction schedule to Owner, A drainage ditch runs across the site in the area where GC is supposed to construct the medical building. It is evident from GC's daily logs and other records that it first planned to divert all water flowing through the existing drainage ditch, fill the ditch, construct a suitable building pad, install concrete footings and the concrete slab, and erect the medical building. It begins to rain two days after GC starts work. The rain continues off and on for over 30 days making it impossible for GC to perform any work. After the site dries for another 15 days, GC requests a 45-day time extension from Owner. Owner refuses to allow the time extension, but does not expressly direct GC to accelerate its work. Question In addition to the 45-day weather delay, Phase I of the project experienced additional delays caused by both GC and Owner, as well as other weather events. In fact, after Owner recognized that the entire project would be delayed by approximately one year, it made plans to minimize any financial impact due to late completion, which was admittedly caused by both parties (and the weather). After the project was completed, the project architect analyzed the issue of delays, concluding that the project was completed 357 days late due to owner-caused delays, weather, and GC-caused delays. In total, the architect concluded GC was responsible for 165 days of inexcusable delay on Phase I and, therefore, $247,500 in liquidated damages. Unbeknownst to the architect or GC, Owner's actual delay damages were only $25,000. Owner demanded $247,500 in liquidated damages from GC. Which is correct Group of answer choices There is a good chance the liquidated damage assessment would be sustained because courts are always required to enforce contracts exactly as they are written. There is a good chance the liquidated damage assessment would be sustained because there is nothing to indicate that the liquidated damage rate was not a reasonable estimate of pre-breach loss. The fact that Owner mitigated the situation and decreased its actual delay damage should actually. help its chances of recovering the full liquidated damages assessment from GC. There is a good chance the liquidated damage assessment would be thrown out because it appears to be an unenforceable penalty, Not only are the Owner's actual delay damages only $25,000, an amount vastly less than the assessment, there is a question as to whether Owner's admitted delays caused or contributed to its actual delay damages