Pat’s arguments against breach of contract
In view of the nature of the contract between Pat and Big Industry Ltd, it is clearly indicated that the terms of the contract would not be changed unless through written documents signed by both parties. Therefore, the various telephone conversations between Pat and the Hillary, the President of Big Industry Ltd, did not have any change on the original written contract. Contrary to the argument by Hillary that Pat had already repudiated the contract on 15th April when he made a call to the President complaining about various issues making the work somewhat impossible to deliver, there was no change in the initial requirements of the contract. The terms of the contract were bound through the language therein and could only be changed if the two parties had a written document that would be signed by both parties. It is therefore clear that Pat would prevail in this matter for contractual violation on the part of Big Industry. Based on the language of the written contract, Pat would obviously prevail over Big Industry for breach of contract.
On its part, Big Industry could raise numerous defenses against the legal action by Pat. For instance, the company could argue that Pat nullified the contract through his 15th April call. This had the effect of changing the contract which was originally in writing to an oral contract. Another defense that Big Industry could use was definite in terms of timing for the delivery of the four computer programs by 1st May by Pat. The call made by Pat on 15th April had the effect of confusing the company as it did not show any possibility of timely delivery of the computer programs on time; something that could have negative financial implications on the company. Another defense that Big Industry can bring to the court is the apparent mistake on the part of Pat. It is evident that Pat did not consider the requirements of the service he was to provide to the company before the contract was signed. This explains why he only noticed the obsolete hardware of the company’s computers. As a serious consultant, Pat would have checked everything first before accepting to deliver the programs buy 1st May. In Williams v. Roffey Bros & Nicholls Ltd (1991) it is clear that parties to contract can have a variation of the initial contract through fresh consideration. Furthermore, Big Industry can base its defense on unclean hands doctrine by arguing that Pat on his part acted in a manner as to terminate the contract by his April 15th call. The call had indicated his inability to deliver the programs on time and a possibility of not delivering program number 4 at all.