Examines whether a contractor should be given the option of putting faulty work right or pay the cost of others doing the work. However, this situation can often lead to a dispute as the contractor can argue that a fault is not preventing use of a facility and that an owner is seeking to make a profit from a situation. "Ruxley Electronics v Forsyth" (HL Abs53197) ruled the contractor should only pay £2 500 for loss of amenity rather than £21 560 claimed, when he failed to construct a swimming pool to the specified depth, the difference only being nine inches. "McLaren Murdoch and Hamilton Ltd v The Abercromby Motor Group Ltd" (CSOH 2002) dealt with a dispute where an previously installed underfloor heating system in a car motor showroom and workshop was deemed inadequate, and the owner sought to reclaim the cost of replacing it. The architect was ordered to pay the whole cost of the error. The two cases have differing outcomes as Forsyth could still use the pool, whereas Abercromby could not arguably use a cold showroom.