Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

contractlawsuitbreach of contractplaintiff
contractbreach of contractplaintiffdefendant

Related Cases

Annett Holdings, Inc. v. Kum & Go, L.C., 801 N.W.2d 499
View Case »
Robinson v. Robinson, nan
View Case »
Miller v. Robertson, 266 U.S. 243, 45 S.Ct. 73, 69 L.Ed. 265
View Case »
Brown v. Compass Harbor Village Condominium Association, 229 A.3d 158, 2020 ME 44
View Case »
Hart v. E.P. Dutton & Co., 197 Misc. 274, 93 N.Y.S.2d 871
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Jacob & Youngs v. Kent, 230 N.Y. 239, 129 N.E. 889, 23 A.L.R. 1429

Facts

Jacob & Youngs, Incorporated constructed a country residence for George E. Kent at a cost of over $77,000. After the construction was completed in June 1914, Kent began occupying the dwelling without complaint until March 1915, when he discovered that some plumbing pipe used was not from the specified Reading manufacturer. The architect ordered the work to be redone, which would have required significant demolition. The plaintiff sought a certificate for final payment, which was refused, leading to this lawsuit.

The plaintiff built a country residence for the defendant at a cost of upwards of $77,000, and now sues to recover a balance of $3,483.46, remaining unpaid.

Issue

Did the plaintiff's failure to use the specified brand of plumbing pipe constitute a breach of contract that would prevent recovery of the unpaid balance?

Did the plaintiff's failure to use the specified brand of plumbing pipe constitute a breach of contract that would prevent recovery of the unpaid balance?

Rule

The courts recognize that an omission that is trivial and innocent may not constitute a breach of contract that results in forfeiture, and substantial performance may allow for recovery despite minor defects.

The courts never say that one who makes a contract fills the measure of his duty by less than full performance.

Analysis

The court analyzed whether the omission of the specified brand of pipe was significant enough to constitute a breach of contract. It considered the nature of the defect, the intent behind the contract, and the potential for the defect to affect the overall value of the construction. The court noted that the evidence, if admitted, could suggest that the defect was insignificant and did not warrant a forfeiture of payment.

We think the evidence, if admitted, would have supplied some basis for the inference that the defect was insignificant in its relation to the project.

Conclusion

The court affirmed the order and directed judgment in favor of the plaintiff, indicating that the omission of the specified pipe did not constitute a substantial breach of the contract.

The order should be affirmed, and judgment absolute directed in favor of the plaintiff upon the stipulation, with costs in all courts.

Who won?

The plaintiff, Jacob & Youngs, Incorporated, prevailed because the court found that the omission of the specified pipe was not a substantial breach of contract and that the plaintiff was entitled to recover the unpaid balance.

The plaintiff, Jacob & Youngs, Incorporated, prevailed because the court found that the omission of the specified pipe was not a substantial breach of contract.

You must be