Downward Dog Ltd (DD) wanted to increase the amount of natural light in its yoga studio. The studio specialized in goat yoga and was held in an old barn on a farm. It decided to purchase a skylight system from Skylights-R-Us-Ltd (Skylights), which duly supplied and installed metal frame acrylic skylights on the north and south sides of the large yoga studio. Unfortunately, the skylights soon began to experience problems with humidity, condensation, and leaking. As well, the acrylic itself began to crack. In response to complaints by DD, Skylights suggested that DD add supplemental heat to the building as well as install a proper ventilation system. They had previously made this suggestion to DD when negotiating the contract but the owner of DD refused. DD refused, again saying that it had been supplied with defective skylights. Now the skylights are riddled with cracks and are beyond repair. DD has now sued Skylights for breach of contract and is seeking damages to replace the skylights as well as undertake mold remediation work in the goat area. What is the argument that DD has failed to properly mitigate? If that argument is successful, what impact does this have on DD’s damage claim? What other weaknesses do you detect in DD’s case? How could the contract have reduced the risk of this claim by DD?
