Clarkson V. Orkin (1985)
Jhon Hernandez
Clarkson v. Orkin Exterminating Co., Inc. 761 F.2d 189 (1985) Facts: Mrs. Clarkson bought a house. Orkin contracted with Mrs. Clarkson to treat the house for termite’s infestation and retreat the house in the event that a termite problem develops in the future. A few years later Mrs. Clarkson offered the house for sale. Purchasers noticed that the house was infested with termites. Mrs. Clarkson wanted Orkins to respond, but Orkins reported that correct treatment could not be done because Mrs. Clarkson had a prevalent issue. Mrs. Clarkson had to find somebody else for the job and later sue Orkin to reimburse for the cost of such services. Issue: Is a party liable when proper performance is not done adequate as stated in a previous agreed contract? Holding: YES Rule: Breach of a contract means failing to perform any term of a contract, written or oral, without a legal excuse. Analysis: Mrs. Clarkson contracted Orkin to perform decontamination in her house due to termite’s infestation. Even though, Mrs. Clarkson elected to take a lowest option from the various options of services that Orkin offers. Mrs. Clarkson was still guaranteed for proper performance of an inspection, treatment and re-treatment in case of future infestations. Due to negligent operation of Orkin when inspecting the house, termites where found in a later day, and those termites where treated by a different contractor. This contractor had a cost. Which was the main issue that Mrs. Clarkson was seeking to be reimburse. Mrs. Clarkson was also seeking for punitive and actual damages that came from the sequence of events. Conclusion: Mrs. Clarkson is in all accurate with what she claims, and Orkins is liable for any damages and treatment that the house may present today or in the future. If Orkin chooses not to comply he will be breaching a contract and facing legal violation of the South Carolina’s Unfair Trade
Clarkson v. Orkin Exterminating Co., Inc. 761 F.2d 189 (1985) Facts: Mrs. Clarkson bought a house. Orkin contracted with Mrs. Clarkson to treat the house for termite’s infestation and retreat the house in the event that a termite problem develops in the future. A few years later Mrs. Clarkson offered the house for sale. Purchasers noticed that the house was infested with termites. Mrs. Clarkson wanted Orkins to respond, but Orkins reported that correct treatment could not be done because Mrs. Clarkson had a prevalent issue. Mrs. Clarkson had to find somebody else for the job and later sue Orkin to reimburse for the cost of such services. Issue: Is a party liable when proper performance is not done adequate as stated in a previous agreed contract? Holding: YES Rule: Breach of a contract means failing to perform any term of a contract, written or oral, without a legal excuse. Analysis: Mrs. Clarkson contracted Orkin to perform decontamination in her house due to termite’s infestation. Even though, Mrs. Clarkson elected to take a lowest option from the various options of services that Orkin offers. Mrs. Clarkson was still guaranteed for proper performance of an inspection, treatment and re-treatment in case of future infestations. Due to negligent operation of Orkin when inspecting the house, termites where found in a later day, and those termites where treated by a different contractor. This contractor had a cost. Which was the main issue that Mrs. Clarkson was seeking to be reimburse. Mrs. Clarkson was also seeking for punitive and actual damages that came from the sequence of events. Conclusion: Mrs. Clarkson is in all accurate with what she claims, and Orkins is liable for any damages and treatment that the house may present today or in the future. If Orkin chooses not to comply he will be breaching a contract and facing legal violation of the South Carolina’s Unfair Trade