[andreyveritas]

We live in a world where the law is the law. No matter what we do, laws are part of our everyday life. Laws allows us to live with other people in a safe and peaceful way. It may not be perfect, but it's what separates us from other animals. When those laws are broken, or believed to be broken, many people suffer. Toba Beta once said, “If you violate laws of God, you're a sinner. If you violate laws of men, you're a criminal. If you violate your own laws, you're pathetic.” What does it make you if the laws are violated because of the simple misunderstanding? That’s what I believe happened in this situation.

Ronald Smith owns a home in the Chicago, Illinois. For some time now he noticed that his garage is falling apart. He decided to build a new and better garage in its place. Ronald hired Garages R Us for the work that needed to be done. After 2 party’s went over everything that needed to be done, and how it would done. The verbal agreement was created. Then the written contract was created, but it did not include any information about the grovel or the rods, and it does not contain any pictures that he was shown. Like most retired people Ronald enjoyed watching other people through his window. Every day he watched the workers work. He noticed that the workers are not doing what he was told they would do. They did not put enough gravel across the ground. Ronald immediately calls Sam, to complain. Before Sam arrives at the house, the workers poured the concreted and it set. Ronald wanted the concrete broken up, to show the problem. Sam has no problem with braking up the concrete if Ronald agrees to pay for the cost of laying down the new concrete. After a long shouting match, both party’s went their own way. A month goes by, the bank requests the first payment from the Ronald. Ronald refuses to pay, as the job was not completed and wasn’t done right. Bank wants to sue Ronald, Ronald wants to sue Garages R Us.

Looking at this situation we can clearly see that every party didn't get what they expected to get. When Ronald claimed that workers did not put enough gravel across the ground, he did not produce any evidence. He did not make any videos, or pictures. He did not attempt to talk to them, or stop them from doing any further work. Even more, the written contract did not state that they were supposed to put any grovel or rods. As far as we can see Ronald does not have any grounds to sue Sam.

According to the LegalMatch Law Library, “In order for a third party beneficiary to have any rights under the contract, he must be an intended beneficiary, as opposed to an incidental beneficiary.” By looking at the facts it clearly shows that the Bank was an intended beneficiary. It might not be fair, but Bank has the right to sue Sam. Sam did have a contract with a bank. Bank is not responsible for any misunderstandings between Ronald and Sam. As the saying goes, “house always wins”. In this situation the bank is a house, and most likely they would win. Sam would be responsible for paying the money owed. At least for the job that was done.

[joypulv]

I'm sorry he didn't go over the contract to be sure everything they talked about was in it.
It's his word against their's now.
He is free to sue. After he pays the bank.
He can pay someone to testify that a concrete slab needs gravel under it and rods in it.
Judges can be sympathetic in civil suits sometimes. You never know.

[AK lawyer]

This is homework, isn't it? We don't do homework.