Tired of wasting his time on lawsuits, Pete found another location for his restaurant and simply had his lawyer negotiate the lease. The space needed extensive renovations, particularly in the kitchen, and the landlord insisted that Pete pay for that work to be done. Pete designed the renovations himself, and hired Cato Carpenter to do the work. Wanting to be more careful about putting things in writing, he drafting an agreement for Cato to sign, which described the renovations in detail, the requirement that the work be finished within 60 days, and the total contract price of $36,000 to be paid once the restaurant was in "move-in condition" and received a Certificate of Occupancy from the City of Ithaca. At the end of the 60-day period, Cato informed Pete that he had completed the renovations as agreed and asked Pete to come to inspect the final work before applying for the Certificate of Occupancy. When Pete came to inspect the restaurant, he was completely shocked to see that interior of the restaurant had not been newly painted. When Pete confronted Cato, Cato simply stated that the contract did not require him to paint the restaurant but simply to perform the prescribed repairs. The repairs were individually listed, and painting the restaurant was not on the list. Pete responded by arguing that "move-in condition" clearly meant that the painting was Cato's responsibility under the contract. During negotiations of the contract, Pete had asked Cato if he knew any good commercial painters in Ithaca, and Cato had responded that he would give Pete a list. Cato had forgotten to provide the list to Pete.

D Question 7 2.5 pts If Pete brings a claim for breach of contract against Cato for not painting the restaurant within 60 days, how is the court likely to rule on the claim? 0 The court is likely to reject the claim because the language of the contract clearly included a list of repairs, and painting was not on the list. 0 The court is likely to reject the claim based on the doctrine of mutual mistake. O The court is likely to sustain the claim because painting the restaurant was implicit in the contract. 0 The court is likely to sustain the claim because Cato was more knowledgeable about construction contracts than Pete, and so the contract will interpreted in Pete's favor. D Question 8 2.5 pts If Pete testifies that he specifically included the term "move-in condition" so that painting would be included as Cato's contractual obligation, what is Cato's best argument in response? If Pete wanted a particular task included, he should have listed it along with all of the other repairs, and any ambiguity in the contract will be interpreted against Pete as the drafter. O Pete doesn't have any experience drafting construction contracts, so his testimony should be disregarded. O The walls of restaurant didn't need to be painted in order for the City of Ithaca to issue a Certificate of Occupancy. O Pete is dishonest, and his testimony should not be believed by the court.ID Question 9 2.5 pts If the court decides to admit parol evidence to interpret the contract, what is the most accurate statement of the results of the case? O Cato will win because the parol evidence supports Cato's interpretation that the contract did not require him to perform the painting. O Pete will win because there was clear evidence from the negotiations that Pete intended to have the restaurant painted and Cato forgot to give Pete the list of painters he asked for. O Pete will win because painting is not a \"repair" and so the exclusion of it from the list is not persuasive. O Cato will win because his website does not list \"painting" as one of his competencies. l:3=- Question 10 2.5 pts If Pete has an expert witness testify that "move-in condition\" in construction contracts often includes the requirement of a fresh coat of paint, what is Cato's best argument to still win the case? 0 Contracts are interpreted as a whole and based upon the general meaning of the words used. If Pete had wanted Cato to include painting among the tasks, he should have specically included on the list, and Pete's request for names of commercial painters shows that Pete intended for someone else to complete this task. O Cato didn't know that the term \"move-in condition\" might include painting so he can't be obligated to perform this task. 0 If Cato was required to paint the restaurant on top of all other repairs, he would have lost money on the contract, which shows that neither he nor Pete intended for it to be included. 0 The existing paint was in fairly good shape at the time Cato nished the repairs, and a new coat of paint was not necessary. D Question 11 2.5 pts If Cato agreed to paint the restaurant to avoid conflict with Pete, and he finished the painting on the 62nd day, what is his best defense to a claim of breach of contract by Pete for finishing the work late? O Cato substantially performed the contract, and the slight delay in in finishing the painting was not intentional on Cato's part. O The delay was Pete's fault for drafting an ambiguous contract. O Pete should have followed up with Cato sooner to ask for the list of painting contractors. O Pete released Cato from any liability by agreeing to allow him to paint after the 60th day.D Question 12 2.5 pts If Pete wins the breach of contract claim against Cato and asks the court to order specific performance of the painting (i.e., compelling Cato to paint the restaurant) what is the most likely result? O The court will not grant specific performance because this remedy is not available for personal services contracts. O The court will grant specific performance because Cato has been working in the restaurant for two months and knows the space. The court will grant specific performance because forcing Pete to get another contractor to do the painting will delay the completion even further. O The court will not grant specific performance because Cato is not an experienced painter