Stellar Construction Inc. agreed to build a new Olympic swimming pool for the Thomson Aquatic Centre for $450 000. The completion date was May 1. Thomson visited the pool on April 23, and was very disappointed with the quality of the tiles and caulking on the edges of the pool. She complained at once to Urqhart, Stellar's on-site manager. Urqhart said that the tiles and caulking complied with the specifications, but if Thomson wanted them replaced there would be a delay of two weeks for completing the project. Thomson insisted that the quality was inadequate but that she needed to have the pool ready by May 3 when she had scheduled the grand opening celebration of the renovated centre. Urqhart replied that she would have to choose between a delayed opening and accepting the tiles as is. Thomson then said, "Leave it. We'll settle it later." Stellar continued its work and completed the project on May 2, in time for the grand opening. The final payment of $100 000 to Stellar was due May 15, but Thomson refused to pay it. She claimed that she had an independent appraisal of the tile work, that it would cost at least $50 000 to have the work done, and that the pool would have to be closed for two weeks, causing substantial losses in revenue to the Aquatic Centre. Stellar sued Thomson for the $100 000, denying that Thomson's complaint was valid. It was established that the tiles failed to meet the specifications in the contract between the parties, and that replacing them would indeed cost $50 000 plus the cost of business disruption. However, the diminished appearance of the pool caused by the tiles reduced the value of the pool by no more than $15 000. Give your opinion about whether it was Thomson's choice to replace or leave the tiles. In either case, would Stellar's failure to perform amount to a minor or major breach?