You are a summer associate at the law firm of Tarloff, Klinger, & Perkins in the city of Belfast, Indiana. Your boss, Valeria Magellon, approaches you to discuss a potential new client named Vivian Hamilton. Hamilton sold an air conditioner to a man named Jim Ford, who was dissatisfied and refused to pay for it even though he had signed a contract. Hamilton came to the firm to find out whether she should pursue a legal action against Ford. Your boss is now asking you to learn the answer and explain it in a short memo These are the facts, as they have been reported to you:

• Jim Ford is the owner of an art gallery in town. When the old air conditioner in his gallery broke, he sought the service of Vivian Hamilton to install a new unit. They agreed on a price and drafted a contract, which stated:

"1. Hamilton Heating and Cooling agrees to install a functional central air-conditioning system in the Ford Gallery.2. Because the system will cool an exhibition space, no condenser units or any other parts may jut out into the gallery, or obstruct or otherwise interfere with the viewing of art.3. A digital thermostat will be located in Ford's office, so that he may easily adjust the temperature to meet the particular needs of the gallery's visitors.4. If the work is completed by June 1, 2018, and approved by Ford, then Ford will pay Hamilton $13,000 by June 5, 2018."

• Hamilton completed the work on May 31, 2018.
• On June 15, Ford informed Hamilton that he would not pay for the unit and requested that it be removed. His letter stated three objections. First, "the vents are unattractive and undermine the aesthetics of the gallery. Their red undertones clash with the green on the walls" Second, the unit "only offers even-numbered temperature settings, which does not allow the level of precision control that I need." Third, the "temperature does not change quickly enough to suit the needs of my guests." For these reasons, Ford requested that Hamilton remove the system.
• Hamilton says that Ford verbally agreed to the unit when she showed him a picture of it, and that she also made its specifications (including the even numbered controls and power) clear to Ford. She has no written proof of this agreement.
• Hamilton wishes to sue Ford for $13,000 in state court.

Hamilton believes that she has two causes of action in this case. First, Ford verbally agreed to the system, voiding his right to reject the product. Second, even if she cannot prove his prior agreement, she believes that his demands are unreasonable and do not constitute legitimate grounds for breaching the contract. Ford has argued that his concerns are reasonable. Without careful control of the environment, he will not be able to ensure that those attending his gallery are not distracted from their engagement with the art. For the purpose of drafting your memo, you can assume that the following statute and cases from the Indiana Supreme Court are the only relevant issues that need to be discussed.

• Indiana state code Sec. 23.8 (BUYER'S RIGHT TO RESCIND CONTRACT) states that a contract "may be voided only for cause," and lists the following elements as valid justifications: "dishonest advertising, failure to meet agreed specifications, failure to meet specified deadlines." Canceling a contract for any other reason "constitutes a breach" and allows the aggrieved party to recover damages.
• In Olsen v. Harkins, Olsen purchased a pump from Harkins, but refused to pay once the pump was installed because it did not siphon water quickly enough. The court determined that a buyer is entitled to refuse payment when a product fails to meet reasonable functional demands.
• In Kernoff v. Clark, Kernoff hired Clark to hang drapery for a musical performance. Once the drapes were up, he complained that their color would clash with the other decorations in the room, and refused to pay. Clark argued that the colors did not clash, and cited multiple design experts who argued that no reasonable person would argue otherwise. The court held that a client is permitted to reject a product, even on unreasonable grounds, when the purpose of the product is primarily aesthetic.
• In Brandt v. Avidan, Brandt hired Avidan to paint a large mural in the second floor atrium of her restaurant. Once Avidan was halfway complete, she informed him that she did not like his design and would not pay for its completion. Citing the precedent from Kernoff v. Clark, she argued that aesthetic decisions were sufficient grounds for canceling the contract. Avidan sued, arguing that her objections were not honest, but rather were driven by declining revenue. The court found that even if one may reject aesthetic work on unreasonable grounds, the dissatisfaction cannot be feigned. In this case, Brandt was not permitted to use the objection as a cover to justify voiding

I belive that ford must pay due to the date gap. Can you please help me