A plaintiff did construction to a theater and wanted final balance and the defendant refuse to pay. What rule?

The plaintiff brought an action to collect the final balance owed for the construction of a theater. The defendant refused to pay, claiming that certain small items in the contract had not been preformed, although he admitted that the cost of completing the omitted items would be small. The plaintiff's action was for the final balance less the cost of finishing the omitted items. How would the court rule in this case? Using real terminology

Under the doctrine of "substantial performance," the contractor would argue that his work was so closely equivalent to the theater owner's demands that it would be unjust to deny him payment. The classic case is Jacob & Youngs v. Kent 230 N.Y. 239 (1921). If the court found that the contractor's work constituted breach, the contractor would still be entitled to recover the value of his work under the doctrine of unjust enrichment - the theater owner would enjoy a substantial benefit at the expense of the contractor, something the law cannot allow.

If the court finds that the purpose of the contract had been met despite the ommissions, the builder would be awarded the price, less the cost of the ommissions. If the ommissions were important enough, the court would find that the builder breached, but that he was entitled to the value of the work he actually did, although "value" is generally less than the agreed price because the court excludes the profit margin.