Art and Betty own adjoining farms in County, an area where all agriculture requires irrigation.Betty has enough water from the County to irrigate her farm's apple crops, but does not like the taste of the County's water for drinking. Betty asked Art to drill a well near her house to supply better tasting drinking water than the County water she has been using for years.

Art said that he woulddrill to a maximum depth of 600 feet, which is the deepest his rig could reach.Betty said, "OK, if you guarantee June 1 completion."Art agreed and asked for $3,500 in advance, Betty said," OK," and paid Art $3,500.

Artstarted to drill on May 1. He hadreached a depth of 200 feet on May 10 when his drill struck rock and broke, plugging the hole. Theaccident was unavoidable. Art said he would not charge Betty for drilling the useless hole, but he would have to start a new wellclose by, andcould not promise its completion before July 1.

On August 1, County's dam failed, thus reducing the amount of water available for irrigation.Betty lost her apple crop worth $15,000. The loss could have been avoided by pumping from Betty's well if it had been operational by August 1. Betty sued Art seeking to recover her $3,500, plus the $15,000 loss on her apple cross. In her suit against Art,is Betty entitled to consequential damages in the amount of $15,000 for the loss of her apple crop? August 1. Betty sued Art seeking to recover her $3,500, plus the $15,000 loss on her apple cross.