Dietz Development LLC v. Perez

Dietz Development LLC v. Perez

The main source of the problem is when Ms. Perez locked out Dietz Development after she requested the construction company to perform additional work beyond what was in their agreement for free. Locking the Dietz out of the premise because of denial to do extra work, that was outside the contract was a breach of contract and is what initiated a chain of events and lawsuits.

Dietz Development LLC and Jane Perez had a contract. The terms of the contract were that the company was to do cosmetic repair her newly purchased home which included painting refinishing the floors, electrical,  plumbing and handyman work. However the  defendant Ms.Perez asked the company to do extra work or free which amounted to and upon refusal locked the company out of the home, which amounted to breach of the contract terms.she made the matter worse by harming the reputation of the company by posting to the public information that affected negatively the reputation of the company, and refusing to pay invoice of the completed work when she was the party that breached the terms of the contract.

Ms. Perez was not at all justified in with her allegedly disparaging or slanderous remarks in online sites. This is because most of the remarks are built on falsehood and there was a better option to deal with their disputes rather than to ruin the image of the company by making such slanderous remarks. Instead of posting the remarks to the websites with the intention of harming the reputation of the company, she should have reported the matter to the police and provide the solid facts on the mater which she felt that the company had violated regarding their contract. This would have had the dispute settled in a p[roper legal way which would have provided justice to both parties. She also had an option of approaching Dietz Development and settled their disputes by agreeing to pay the extra work that she wanted to be done for free or let the construction company finish the work as per their agreement rather than locking it out. She should also have thought about the implications of her remarks in the public website to the company and act in a moral and ethical manner that would not harm the company and be like a ravage rather than the exercise of her freedom of expression or right of speech.

Dietz had a case against Ms.Perez for ruining his business. This is because even though the defendant was the one who breached the terms of the contract, she went ahead and posted and slanderous remarks in online sites which she very well new that it had negative impacts on the reputation and the business of the company. Also, some of the allegations and remarks that she made on the site had not factual base, like the allegation about the company had stolen the jewelry, which even herself does not believe in this allegation ” I don’t believe that you were involved  and the police know this.” This indicates that these remarks had more malicious intentions than an intention to express her desire for dissatisfaction with the services provided by the company, and there is always a better option.

One of how Dietz could have done to avoid the escalating dispute is by taking a legal which he made on October 31, 2012, early. This is because he had waited for almost more than a year giving time for the dispute to escalate and grow to a state, which caused more harm to the company. Further, in July 2011 when he filled a lawsuit over the unpaid invoices, he failed to provide a bill of particulars. Had he filled the bill of particulars the case would have been decided, and the dispute would not have escalated and caused such harm.

What have learned from this is that failure to settle a dispute with client or customer at early stages could result into high amount loss especially on the side of the business or both financial and non- economic quantities.The best decision when in dispute with a client is not to take legal action (unless it’s the only option) but to sit down with the customer or client and settle down the issue in a more peaceful and less costly manner to both parties.