|← The Secret to Perfect Writing Strategies||DB5 →|
A copy of Carl’s inspection report on the bridge supports its claim that there were no defects at the time of the completion of the bridge.
A contract is binding between two or more parties promising to perform certain activities. Carl’s entered into a contract with city in order to be entitled to build the bridge. This agreement binds the two parties such that if one of them breaches the contract he or she will be held liable to. This means that the offending party can be sued for damages.
In the case of Carl’s vs City; the city has the right to sue Carl’s for damages if it can prove that there was the breach of the contract. According to the city, Carl’s did the construction negligently while Carl’s maintains that there were no defects at the time of the completion of the bridge (Randy, 2003).
Carl’s will turn over evidence to the city against a suit in the form of a copy of an inspection report done at the completion of the bridge which reveals the defect in the bridge construction was not found.
Carl’s cannot table the evidence stated by his subcontractor. Carl’s pay indemnity in case of any liability resulting from defects in the cement work of the bridge is proven. The contract between Carl’s and the City does not recognize these evidences and the use of inferior cement mix would not help Carl’s nor will the document describe problems with the paving work of the bridge.
The only evidence that Carl’s can present is that of the inspection documents because if he uses the evidence of indemnity agreement between him and Sam’s it will cause him troubles because according to their initial agreement only two parties existed and the third party which is Sam’s subcontractor is not mentioned in the contract signed between him and the City. In the west law statutory it’s clear that in order to compile a contract every party must be included and any party included in the contract without the knowledge of other party makes that contract void.
In case the evidence presented by Carl’s is rejected then the only option is to pay the City amount lost in form of compensation to those whose car has been damaged and in return he should turn to Sam’s for compensation due to the loss to the city in form of compensation. Due to the indemnity agreement between Carl’s and Sam’s the compensation should be only the amount lost in that damage and no gain should be executed (Ewan, 2005).