Case brief jacob vs kent 1921

Van Vechten, N.

significance jacob & youngs v kent

On the completion of the building, the owner learns that through the blunder of a subcontractor part of the foundation has been built of granite of the same quality quarried in New Hampshire. The court felt that had the evidence provided by the plaintiff as to the similarity of the pipes made by the different manufactures been admitted, it would have provided a basis for the inference that the defect was insignificant in relation to the project.

Case brief jacob vs kent 1921

Plaintiff did not have to replace the Cohoes pipes with the Reading pipes. Dissenting Opinion: McLaughlin: Plaintiff did not perform its contract. The plaintiff was accordingly directed by the architect to do the work anew.

Sackett v spindler

The measure of the allowance must be shaped to the same end. The distinction is akin to that between dependent and independent promises, or between promises and conditions. I dissent. We must weigh the purpose to be served, the desire to be gratified, the excuse for deviation from the letter, the cruelty of enforced adherence. The margin of departure within the range of normal expectation upon a sale of common chattels will vary from the margin to be expected upon a contract for the construction of a mansion or a 'skyscraper. Having departed from the agreement, if performance has not been waived by the other party, the law will not allow him to allege that he has made as good a building as the one he engaged to erect. We think, however, that the offer, if it had been made, would not of necessity have been defective because directed to difference in value. When that is true, the measure id the difference in value. Dissenting Opinion: McLaughlin: Plaintiff did not perform its contract. The defendant had a right to contract for what he wanted. In point of fact, the plaintiff never reached the stage at which evidence of the extent of the allowance became necessary.

The plaintiff did not replace the pipe, and sought final payment. Facts: Plaintiff was under contract with defendant to build a home using a specific type of pipe for all of the plumbing.

plante v jacobs

Stock, N. The question of substantial performance of a contract of the character of the one under consideration depends in no small degree upon the good faith of the contractor.

Jacob & youngs inc v kent decision

Pipe would thereafter be delivered and installed in the building, without any examination whatever. Even if plaintiff put something equal or better in, he violated the condition to getting paid for that work and should not recover. Defendant moved in after construction and lived there without complaint for nine months. The same omission may take on one aspect or another according to its setting. After nine months he learned that some of the pipe was not made in Reading like the contract specified. They then examined it for the purpose of ascertaining whether this delivery was of that manufacture and found it was. The defendant did not limit his demand to them, but treated the plumbing as a unit to be corrected from cellar to roof. Substitution of equivalents may not have the same significance in fields of art on the one side and in those of mere utility on the other. The makes of pipe were practically identical and only distinguishable by the name stamped on them every six or seven feet. Some of the exposed sections might perhaps have been replaced at moderate expense. Bliss, Mass. The work of construction ceased in June, , and the defendant then began to occupy the dwelling. Even the defendant's architect, though he inspected the pipe upon arrival, failed to notice the discrepancy.

Additionally, the plaintiff attempted to show that, although the pipe was made by different manufacturers, its quality was the same. The willful transgressor must accept the penalty of his transgression Schultze v.

Reasoning: It would be harsh, oppressive, and unjust to always treat contracts entirely dependent on even their minutiae. The measure of allowance is not the cost of reconstruction.

Rated 7/10 based on 71 review
Jacob & Youngs v. Kent (Damages)