Question

Forrest hires Nadine to turn his basement into a family room for 50,000. About halfway through, Nadine discovers for the first time that the wood in the floor of the basement was riddled with mold and all the wood had to be removed and replaced. Nadine tells Forrest that it will cost him an additional10,000 for this work. Which of the following is true?

1) The mold was an unforeseen circumstance to the basement work, and it was lawful for Nadine to charge Forrest for the additional work.
2) Nadine was entitled to charge Forrest the $10,000 to avoid an unjust enrichment.
3) Nadine would only be able to collect the $10,000 if the contract was registered with the Secretary of State.
4) Nadine had a preexisting duty to work on the basement and could not charge Forrest the extra $10,000.

Answer 1

Options 1) and 2) are potentially correct since Nadine encountered unforeseen circumstances with mold, which could justify additional costs to prevent unjust enrichment. However, further legal analysis would be needed. Options 3) and 4) are incorrect; contracts do not require registration with the Secretary of State, and the preexisting duty rule does not apply to unforeseen additional work.

Step-by-step explanation:

The question about Forrest and Nadine's contract for basement renovation pertains to the lawfulness of an additional charge due to unforeseen circumstances. Firstly, in such contracts, if an unforeseen problem, like mold which was unknown to both parties at the time of the agreement, is discovered, it could justify additional costs. This is known as an unforeseen circumstance that may allow the contracted party to request more money for work that was outside the scope of the original contract. Therefore, option 1) is potentially true as the mold discovery can be considered an unforeseen circumstance.

Option 2) refers to unjust enrichment, which happens when one party benefits at the expense of another without offering fair compensation. In this scenario, if Forrest were to benefit from the new mold-free wood without paying for it, it may result in unjust enrichment. However, this notion would likely require detailed legal analysis specific to the terms of the contract and local laws.

As for option 3), it's generally not necessary to register a private residential construction contract with the Secretary of State for it to be enforceable, thus making this option incorrect.

Finally, option 4) is based on the concept of a preexisting duty, which suggests that Nadine cannot charge more for doing something already agreed upon under the contract. However, since the additional work was due to unforeseen circumstances not included in the original contract, the preexisting duty rule would not typically apply here.