Lowell contacts a plumber about fixing a leak under his kitchen sink. The plumber gives an estimate for the work and they enter into a contract for the work to be completed. However, the plumber never returns to complete the job. Lowell allows the sink to continue to leak, leading to significant water and mold damage in the structure of his home. Lowell then files suit for all of the extensive damages to his home against the plumber for breach of contract. Lowell has breached his duty to in this case.

Lowell has breached his duty to win in this case.

Explanation:

In every contract engaged between two parties, there is a specified aim to be achieved with the situation whereby one of the party not keeping to his own bargain is liable to be sued.

In the case of Lowell and the Plumber, the contract was to fix to a leak in his kitchen sink. Since, the plumber didn't fix the work (contract not kept), he can only be sued for issues that comes up in the kitchen sink. But, for Lowell to allow the water to accumulate leading to damages in his home shws that it is against what was initially agreed on.

Lowell breached his duty to wnin this case by allow for the issue to linger rather than sueing the plumber immediately the time fram for the contract expires.

its d i know cause i've been googling it

answer; substantive law;