Evans & Associates built a house for Sandra Dyer, but the house had several problems. The garage ceiling was too low. Load-bearing beams in the great room cracked and appeared to be steadily weakening. The patio did not drain properly. The pipes inside the home also froze.

Evans wanted the money promised for the job, but Dyer refused to pay. Evans & Associates subsequently sued Dyer.

What is Evans & Associates' best legal argument for why Dyer should still have to pay even though there are problems with the house? Who will win the case?