PHASE 1: Legal Evaluation

There are two tests to determine if someone has performed an obligation in a satisfactory manner. The first deals with the scope of performance. Did your adversary do what was promised? The second deals with the quality of the performance.

First, determine whether your adversary performed their obligations for the most part. The standard for determining performance is this: You and your adversary agreed to something – or the law said your adversary had a duty to do something (i.e., driving prudently). Did they substantially do what they were supposed to do?

The second part of the test determines if your adversary did what they were supposed to do in a satisfactory way. If they did what they were supposed to do, but did it in an unsatisfactory way, they have not done what was agreed to. Satisfactory performance is required by law. It requires each person to perform each duty in a satisfactory manner.

The Reasonable Standard

What is considered satisfactory performance? It is what would be acceptable to a reasonable person under similar circumstances.

The law forgives tardiness unless time is critical. Under the reasonable person standard, insignificant departures from what was agreed to are reasonable. Perfect performance is not expected – only reasonable performance. If you lean toward perfectionism, be careful with this question. The law only expects a person to perform a reasonable job.

The circumstances surrounding your matter must also be considered. If you were able to get a highly discounted price for something, the standard would be lower. The result you should then receive is a reasonable one based upon the discount you’ve been given. The law does not allow you to have your cake and eat it too. You can’t receive a significant discount and expect a premium product. That’s not reasonable. If your adversary has not performed his duty in a reasonable manner, then he is considered not to have performed his duty.

Example: The Case of the Crafty Computer Consultant

Crafty did not perform his obligation in a satisfactory manner. Although for the most part he has done what he agreed to, Chris did not perform his services in a satisfactory manner and the upgrade cost far more than Chris quoted. Furthermore, Betty’s expert reports that some of the upgrades were not required, especially the more expensive hardware purchases.