Dickson contracted to build a house for Moran. When it was approximately 25 percent to 40 percent completed, Moran would not let Dickson work anymore because he was not following the building plans and specifications and there were many defects. Moran hired another contractor to correct the defects and finish the building. Dickson sued Moran for breach of contract, claiming that he had substantially performed the contract up to the point where he had been discharged. Was Dickson correct?

Dickson was correct in suing for bridge of contract.

Explanation:

In every contract, there is usually a written agreement which is usually endorsed by the two parties. This signed agreement is binding on both parties and specified on the milestones to achieved and how the work would be carried out.

For Moran to fire Dickson without recourse to seek his view despite the fact that he has fulfilled 40% of the work is a bridge of contract. Moran should have consulted Dickson when the level of work is less than 10$% and point out the flaws in the condtruction.

He should also has warned Dickson about getting fired for not following specification rather than keeping quiet and watching till the work has reached a substantially level before firing him with no warning whatsoever.

what is the answer