Question

法律英语高手请进

Case :
The facts of this case was that the defendant (the owner) entered into a contract with two plaintiff companies for the construction and enclosure of a swimming pool in his garden for a price of $ 70,178. The contract expressly provided that the maximum depth of the pool was to be 7ft 6in. When the work was completed the owner observed that the maximum depth was only 6ft 9in. Further, where people had hoped to dive in the depth was only 6ft deep. The owner had paid various sums in advance but owed $ 39,072. The builders sued for this amount and the owner counter-claim for breach of contract. The owner considered that the only method of curing the defect was to demolish the existing pool and construct a new one. While the judge at first instance found that the value of the pool had not been diminished by the breach and that the pool as constructed was safe to dive into. The judge considered that the cost of rebuilding was wholly disproportionate to the disadvantage of having a pool of a depth shallower than that contracted for. So the judge held that the owner was entitled to $ 2,500 damages for loss of amenity which should be reduced form the remaining amount of $39,072 the owner owed to the plaintiffs.
The owner appealed contending that the judge should have awarded damages for the breach or deducted a sum from the contract price to reflect the need for the pool to be reconstructed to the depth specified in the contract. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that it was reasonable to award damages to take into account the cost of replacing the pool in order to make good the breach of contract, despite the fact that the pool was still usable and that the breach had not diminished the value of the pool. The plaintiffs appealed to the Supreme Court..
Questions:
1. What’s the main legal issue in this case?
2. What kind of performance the plaintiffs had made?
3. Assume to be the judge of this case, whose claim you will confirm? Why?

Answer 1

问题答案：
1.属于合同纠纷
2.原告违反了“合同条款内容”
3.我是法官，我将判定业主方胜诉。因为原告违反了合同条款，属于违约，应承担法律责任。