FACT SCENARIO H (Questions 32-33):

In 2008, Owner hired YYZ Design (YYZ) to design and Geddy Construciton (GC) to construct an office building. As part of its mechanical design, YYZ specified two RTU's as being necessary to achieve Owner's HVAC requirements. After the project was built, it was determined that YYZ's overall mechanical design was undersized ... an additional RTU was necessary. GC estimated it would cost $95,000 for both equipment and installation. An additional $55,000 would be necessary to re-work portions of the project that had already been satisfactorily completed but would have to be removed and replaced to accommodate the new mechanical equipment.

If Owner sues YYZ for its error in preparing an undersized mechanical design, the likely result would be:

Group of answer choices

Owner's claim against YYZ would be sustained. Clearly YYZ committed an error or omission that resulted in a finished product that did not fulfill the owner's requirements explained during programming.

Under the betterment rule, Owner's claim against YYZ would likely be sustained, but only to the extent the costs paid exceed what would have been paid by the owner had the mechanical equipment never been omitted in the first place.

Under the Spearin doctrine, Owner's claim would be sustained in whole on account of YYZ's negligence.

Owner's claim against YYZ would be barred by the economic loss doctrine.