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