Case study

Mr. Saleem decided to construct a factory in his premises in order to be able to meet a tender award he had obtained from a manufacturing company. He therefore contracted a registeredbuilder in orderto have the work completedby November 1st and the contractor agreed. However, the contractor had assumed that the garage was for private use and therefore did not consider it that urgent. What transpired is that when there was a delay in materials delivery, he did not communicate it and as a result the project delayed till February the following year. Therefore, he took the contractor to court in order to recover the loss he had incurred. In his lawsuit he argued that the delay in construction cost him about $150,000 which is the value of the tender and as such wanted the registered contractor to pay him the amount of the tender he lost due to breach of contract by the registered constructor. However, the registered contractor argued that while the urgency was communicated, Mr. Saleem did not communicate that the garage was not needed for the specific execution of the tender from the manufacturing company. The issue therefore is whether the court has the legal authority to order the registered contractor to pay the amount equal to the exact value of the contract he lost as a result of lack of completion of the garage within the specific time that had been communicated.

My question

Discuss the presence of the element of delayed performance on the part of the contractor. What is delayed performance and how does it affect the overall contract in this situation?