For the below claim outline the emotional impact. In the answer please outline who is at wrong and who is at right. And the emotional impact of the situation on the person whos right (so the owner or the construction company)

Emotional Impact/ 4 marks

Annoyance with other person (1 mark)

Ability to control anger (1 mark)

Worry about long-term consequences (1 mark)

Stress from dispute (1 mark)

below is the claim

WINE CELLAR CONSTRUCTION DEFECT CLAIM

Preface

A physician in Tampa, Owner, contracted with a residential general contractor for the construction of a wine cellar on the first floor of the home. The wine cellar was constructed with a separate HVAC system designed to keep the conditions at seventy (70) degrees Fahrenheit and at fifty (50) percent relative humidity (70F/50RH). Within a short time of the wine cellar being operational moisture started to accumulate on the inside of the wine cellar. The moisture accumulation caused semi-saturation of the wood storage racks occurred. Operational conditions of the wine cellar, therefore, were not as intended.

Project and Scope

This project involved the construction of a wine cellar in an existing private residence. The project relied on the conversion of closet space into a functioning wine cellar.

The Parties

Owner is a private homeowner who contracted with GC for a wine cellar addition to the Owner's residence. Owner did extensive research on the design criteria for construction of a wine cellar.

GC is a small volume, local contractor with primary business of residential construction, additions and renovations. The GC was licensed in Florida and, therefore, experienced with an environment of high outside temperature and humidity levels.

There was no architect of record for this wine cellar. The wine cellar was the renovation and conversion of an existent food storage closet with Owner and GC collaborating as the design entity.

Design Process

The Owner contracted with GC for addition of a small wine cellar on the first floor of the Owner's residence. The GC converted an existent food closet that separated the dining room from the garage. As an existent structure the Owner and GC avoided pulling any permits for this work or generating any drawings for the design of this wine cellar. The GC discussed with Owner what GC believed to be a working design.

The Owner considered himself something of a wine connoisseur and researched extensively the design requirements of a wine cellar. Owner conveyed to GC the specific operating conditions of the working wine cellar. GC renovated the food storage closet to meet the operational standards detailed by the Owner.

The GC proposed numerous construction designs to the Owner. The Owner expressed certain budgetary constraints. The Owner discussed the various price parameters versus performance expectations. Owner agreed to the design details and price of the wine cellar, as-built.

The wine cellar sits in one corner of the first floor. One small wall is the common outside wall; one long wall is the common wall with the garage; the other long wall is the common wall with the dining room; the fourth wall is the entrance to the wine room and faces the kitchen.

Construction Materials and Techniques

The outside wall and garage wall are eight inch concrete masonry unit (CMU) construction. The interior of the CMU has fur strips with expanded poly insulation (Styrofoam). The interior common walls are wood framing with batt type fiberglass insulation. The ceiling is insulated. All walls and ceiling utilize green board as the gypsum product. Green board is 108 gypsum board with a moisture resistant paper. All green board was covered in a skim coat of stucco.

The GC's renovations included stripping the inside of the intended wine cellar of all existent gypsum board. GC insulated the walls and ceiling as noted. GC then installed greenboard and finished with a skim coat of stucco. Electrical additions included a 220-volt feed for a ductless split system to maintain conditions in the cellar. All 110-volt needs were preexisting.

The wine cellar utilized a ductless split system, designed to keep conditions at seventy degrees Fahrenheit (70) maximum, with a relative humidity of fifty-five percent (R.H. 55%).

Issues

Once the wine cellar became operational and summer like conditions persisted in the outside environment, the wine cellar exhibited moisture retention on the inside stucco walls and ceiling.

The moisture collection on the inside of the wine cellar caused the wine racks to show signs of moisture retention, to include swelling and discoloration. Additionally, some degrading of corks was visible and documented.

The Owner responded to the moisture in the wine cellar by lowering the temperature of the wine cellar. The Owner believed that if the HVAC ran at a colder temperature the unit would have greater evaporation potential and would, therefore, rid the cellar of the moisture build-up. This did not occur. The colder that the Owner ran the unit the more it appeared moisture collected on the inside stucco walls.

Nature of Dispute

Owner contracted with GC to build a wine cellar in the Owner's residence. The construction techniques are described above.

The Owner seeks correction of the moisture problem in the wine cellar. The Owner seeks replacement of wine racks, mold remediation and construction of a wine cellar that does not accumulate moisture on the inside walls. Owner wants a humidity-controlled wine cellar. GC contends that is built the wine cellar to the specifications of Owner. GC's position is that any further construction or remediation will be at cost to Owner.

Allegations by Owner

Owner alleges that the GC is liable for a construction defect. Specifically, Owner alleges that GC is liable for a deficiency in the construction and remodelling of the wine cellar, where such construction suffers from defective design, defective components and does not meet the accepted trade standards of good and workmanlike construction.

Breach of Express Warranty and Implied Warranty of Fitness

Owner further alleges that GC is in breach of the express warranty in that Owner alleges the GC made affirmative statements that GC would construct a wine cellar to function to the specifications defined by the Owner. Those specifications were conveyed to GC, that the room shall be no more than seventy (70) degrees Fahrenheit and no more than fifty (50) percent relative humidity. Owner alleges GC affirmed the desired specifications of the wine cellar were realistic and achievable.

Owner lastly alleges that GC is in breach of an implied warranty of fitness. This claim is based on the alleged fact that the wine cellar cannot be used for its intended purpose. The implied warranty of fitness claim is based solely on the fact that Owner wanted a functioning wine cellar and GC contracted to deliver a functioning wine cellar. GC was bound, therefore, to deliver the product that GC contracted to deliver. The wine cellar, as alleged by Owner, is non-functional as it traps condensation on the interior stucco walls, causing ruin to wine racks and corks.

Owner alleges that GC made affirmative promises to Owner, that the construction of the wine cellar would be easy, straightforward, and not produce any delays or problems. Owner asserts that this was a warranty in regards to the performance of the wine cellar. Owner alleges that GC assured Owner that a design professional was not necessary for the construction of this wine cellar, in response to Owner's inquiries of the need to hire a design professional for drafting plans for the wine cellar. Owner further alleges that GC indicated that no entity at the county or city permit review level had any experience in wine cellar construction, that no codes exist in regards to wine cellars and that Owner would only be opening up a can of worms by seeking municipal inspection and permitting of the wine cellar.

Construction Expert Opinion

The Owner hired a construction expert who rendered certain opinions concerning the condensation problems of the wine cellar. The expert opines that the design is inadequate to prevent the transmission of water vapor across the walls. The significant difference in temperature and, more importantly, relative humidity between the wine cellar and the two exterior walls is targeted as the source of the problem. The two exterior walls are preexistent cmu construction and there was no significant vapor barrier applied to either. The vapor transmission that occurs, even to a minimal extent, is amplified as the hot humid outside air migrates into the wine cellar. The air in the wine cellar has a lower dew point and cannot hold the moisture that is migrating into the room, thus the condensation problem.

The Owner retained expert makes several suggestions that include applying specific vapor barrier applications to the outside surface of the exterior CMU walls. This is an attempt to prevent the moisture from migrating into and through the CMU. The expert suggests application of products similar to those that are applied to below grade CMU walls. Expert also opines that foil backed gypsum board be applied to walls of the wine cellar that are common with interior areas of the home, as less vapor transmission will be occurring at these locations, including the ceiling which is common with the second floor of the home.

Allegations by GC

Design Defect Not Construction Defect

GC alleges that all limitations of the wine room design were discussed with Owner. GC alleges that GC provided Owner with alternative construction designs and Owner, limited by budget, chose the design that was constructed. GC further alleges that GC advised Owner to hire a design professional for the best design results of the wine cellar. GC alleges that Owner held himself out to be an expert in the design specifications of the wine cellar. Owner utilized GC's knowledge of construction materials and costs to choose the design that Owner wanted, within Owner's budget.

GC alleges that there is nothing inherently wrong with the quality of construction, that there is no construction defect per se. GC contends that the problems with the wine cellar are design issues and GC never held itself out as a design professional. GC alleges it discussed with Owner, in response to Owner inquiry, the lack of municipal inspectors, in GC's opinion, with knowledge of wine cellar construction and that all municipal inspectors would be looking for was the sufficiency of construction not whether the wine cellar was viable in operation.

GC alleges that this was, in fact, an easy straightforward renovation and that the Owner assumed implicit control of the design elements. GC alleges that it offered Owner numerous materials and methods of construction that could be possible. GC emphasizes that there was never a representation to Owner that GC was any type of design professional.

HVAC System Not in GC's Scope

GC alleges that the Owner installed the hvac system for the wine cellar per separate contract with an entity that Owner represented as being skilled and knowledgeable in the installation of wine cellar mechanical systems. GC simply obtained specifications from this mechanical supplier and stubbed out, framed in and otherwise provided the necessary conditions that facilitated the mechanical subcontractor to simply install the mechanical system. As such GC alleges that the mechanical system may be sized incorrectly or not of the type that is necessary to achieve the Owner's desired operating specifications. Furthermore, GC alleges that the Owner did not want to enter a formal contract that included notices of claims rights and procedures per Florida law, i.e. Chapter 558, Florida Statutes. Owner conceived and abbreviated contract that simply stated the amount due and owed to the GC for general home repairs. GC points to this fact to allege that Owner was aware and accepted the potential shortcomings of the wine cellar construction and was, in fact, experimenting with construction techniques to determine what was ultimately successful