Thiswas a scenario of substantial performance. As a result, making averdict on whether to live in the house requires Sandra to begin byconsidering a number of factors. First, she needs to understand thatthe issue regarding the low ceiling of the garage was not a majorpoint of concern because it would not reverse the concept ofsubstantial performance. In other words, in any situation where thedefectively constructed ceiling obstructed an individual and causedinjury or damage to property, that ensuing destruction would beconsidered to have stemmed from an incident judged as an accidentsince the loss to the person came as an unexpected and unforeseenexperience (Beatty& Samuelson, 2012).
Onthe contrary side, the problem regarding the fractured beams poses asa serious matter since it is probable that it would lead to a majorrenovation in the future. Moreover, the other factor that worsens thesituation is the water that collects in the patio because it islikely to percolate underneath the house then consequently lead tothe gradual destruction of the foundation. Additionally, theconstantly frozen pipes stood a risk of bursting and making the waterto overflow in the compound. Bearing in mind the notion of loyalty,even though in this case the destruction to assets was an anticipatedevent, it is not obvious that the resultant damage was intentional tomake the incident to qualify an a plan. Therefore, where thedefectively structured patio causes damage to the foundation bypercolating water, there is a case of an expected happening (Beatty& Samuelson, 2012).
Asa result, regardless of the fact that Evans failed to performconsiderably, he had the entitlement to his contract price because hedid not plan for any misfortune through the substandard work.
Beatty,J., & Samuelson, S. (2012). CengageAdvantage Books: Introduction to Business Law. Cengage Learning.