Daphne hired P$.$J$.$ Plumbing to clear a blocked sewer line in her house. While boring the line out, P$.$J$.$ Plumbing$$s $$snake$$ device $($a long tool used to clear the sewer line$),$ became stuck. To get it out, P$.$J$.$ Plumbing had to dig up part of Daphne$$s back yard to expose the underground sewer line.

When they excavated the line, they discovered numerous leaks in Daphne$$s water pipes which ran underground next to the sewer. To be up to code, the water pipes would need to be replaced at some time, either then or at later date when they would have to be dug up again.

P$.$J$.$ Plumbing replaced the water pipes. The whole time they worked, Daphne sat on a lawn chair and watched; she never objected to the replacement of the pipes. Daphne then refused to pay any part of P$.$J$.$ Plumbing$$s bill. P$.$J$.$ Plumbing then sued Daphne for the total amount of its labor and material.

What arguments would support P$.$J$.$ Plumbing$$s claim for the cost of labor$/$material$?$

What arguments would support Daphne$$s refusal to pay the bill?

Who should win?

Write a short paragraph in response to each of the questions. Your responses should incorporate relevant contract law $($from Chapter $9).$ Then respond to someone else$$s thread in the same forum.