The contract further defines the duration in which the leaser will use the building. In case one of the party breaches the contract, the other party must pay the damages as agreed in the contract.(Blum, 2010).
Concerning Mr. Joseph and Mary Smith's case, it is arguable that they have a case against Cauchemar and Son. In this regard, the case falls under the law of torts. However, it is arguable that the viability of the case depends on a number of issues. First, the viability of the case depends on the approach employed in the filing of the case. In this case, the complainants used breach of contract as a way of suing the defendant. The defendant in this case, is Cauchemar and Son surveyors. However, the approach of using breach of the contract as a way of suing the defendant will only succeed if the two parties initially signed a legally binding contract (Bar & Drobnig, 2004). .
In a scenario where Mr. Joseph and Cauchemar Sons initially signed a contract, the case will succeed. The case will succeed, as there will be sufficient evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant breached the contract. However, the extent to which the case becomes more viable depends on a variety of factors. First, it depends on how the defendant will defend himself. If the defendant defends himself arguing that, the noise from the aircraft was not present during the assessment he may pay slightly lower damages (Hillman, 2009). The defendant may pay lower damages because in his submissions the act was not intentional. The act was not intentional as the noise effect of the aircraft increased after the assessment process. .
This scenario relates to a case, in which a student, who failed in his exams, opted to sue his teacher. The student opted to sue the teacher because when he failed his exams, he did not secure a chance to join the university. Therefore, the student opted to sue the teacher in order to pay him the damages.