Jacob & Youngs v. Kent
Encyclopedia
Jacob & Young, Inc. v. Kent, 230 N.Y. 239 (1921) is a famous contract
law case with the majority opinion by Judge Cardozo
. It dealt with the matters of material breach and substantial performance.http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/archives/jacob_kent.htm
. Because the pipes had already been encased within the walls except in a few places where it had to be exposed, to replace the Cohoes Pipe with the contracted for Reading Pipe would have meant more than the substitution of other pipe. Plaintiff would have had to demolish at great expense of substantial parts of the completed structure. The plaintiff left the work untouched, and asked for a certificate that the final payment was due (arguing substantial performance
).
and excuses the breach of using the same type and quality of pipe which parties had agreed were the same except for brand name. Measure of damages is not the cost to rip out the old pipe and install the new, but the difference in value which in this case is zero dollars.
The rule, however, is argued to contain a tautology
. If there is material breach, then by logic there was not substantial performance. If the court or jury holds that there was substantial performance, then by logic there is no material breach.
Contract
A contract is an agreement entered into by two parties or more with the intention of creating a legal obligation, which may have elements in writing. Contracts can be made orally. The remedy for breach of contract can be "damages" or compensation of money. In equity, the remedy can be specific...
law case with the majority opinion by Judge Cardozo
Benjamin N. Cardozo
Benjamin Nathan Cardozo was a well-known American lawyer and associate Supreme Court Justice. Cardozo is remembered for his significant influence on the development of American common law in the 20th century, in addition to his modesty, philosophy, and vivid prose style...
. It dealt with the matters of material breach and substantial performance.http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/archives/jacob_kent.htm
Facts
The defendant learned that some of the pipe, instead of being made in Reading, was Cohoes piping. The Defendant asked the plaintiff via the architect to do the work all over again supported by the perfect tender rulePerfect tender rule
The perfect tender rule refers to the legal right for a buyer of goods to insist upon "perfect tender" by the seller. In a contract for the sale of goods, if the goods fail to conform exactly to the description in the contract the buyer may reject the goods...
. Because the pipes had already been encased within the walls except in a few places where it had to be exposed, to replace the Cohoes Pipe with the contracted for Reading Pipe would have meant more than the substitution of other pipe. Plaintiff would have had to demolish at great expense of substantial parts of the completed structure. The plaintiff left the work untouched, and asked for a certificate that the final payment was due (arguing substantial performance
Substantial performance
At common law, substantial performance is an alternative principle to the perfect tender rule. This principle is relevant when a contractor's performance is in some way deficient, through no willful act by the contractor, yet is so nearly equivalent that it would be unreasonable for the owner to...
).
Judgment
The plaintiff builder wins and gets his money; he does not have to rip out the Cohoes pipe and replace it with Reading.Significance
When the defect is insignificant, the court will find that there was substantial performanceSubstantial performance
At common law, substantial performance is an alternative principle to the perfect tender rule. This principle is relevant when a contractor's performance is in some way deficient, through no willful act by the contractor, yet is so nearly equivalent that it would be unreasonable for the owner to...
and excuses the breach of using the same type and quality of pipe which parties had agreed were the same except for brand name. Measure of damages is not the cost to rip out the old pipe and install the new, but the difference in value which in this case is zero dollars.
The rule, however, is argued to contain a tautology
Tautology
Tautology may refer to:*Tautology , using different words to say the same thing even if the repetition does not provide clarity. Tautology also means a series of self-reinforcing statements that cannot be disproved because the statements depend on the assumption that they are already...
. If there is material breach, then by logic there was not substantial performance. If the court or jury holds that there was substantial performance, then by logic there is no material breach.
See also
- Hoenig v IsaacsHoenig v IsaacsHoenig v Isaacs [1952] is an English contract law case, concerning substantial performance of an entire obligation.-Facts:Mr Hoenig was meant to decorate and furnish Mr Isaac’s flat for £750. When the work was done, there were problems with a bookcase and wardrobe, which would cost £55 to fix...
- Bolton v MahadevaBolton v MahadevaBolton v Mahadeva [1972] 2 All ER 1322 is an English contract law case, concerning substantial performance of an obligation.-Facts:Mr Walter Charles Bolton installed central heating for £560 in Mr T Mahadeva’s house. It was too cold, the heat came unevenly and it all gave off fumes. Bolton refused...
- English contract lawEnglish contract lawEnglish contract law is a body of law regulating contracts in England and Wales. With its roots in the lex mercatoria and the activism of the judiciary during the industrial revolution, it shares a heritage with countries across the Commonwealth , and the United States...