Jacobs And Youngs V Kent

Law Students: Don't know your Bloomberg Police force login? Annals here

230 N.Y. 239, 129 N.E. 889, 1921 N.Y. 828, 23 A.L.R. 1429

Cursory Fact Summary. Plaintiff Jacob & Youngs, built a house for Defendant Kent for a cost of $77,000, and sued to recover the balance due of $three,483.46. Defendant specified that all pipage in the house must exist Reading pipage, only inadvertently, Plaintiff installed pipe that was not Reading pipe. When Defendant discovered this defect, he demanded that the work be redone, which would have required the sabotage and reconstruction of substantial parts of the business firm, but Plaintiff refused.

Synopsis of Rule of Police force. The measure of damages for a trivial and innocent omission is not the toll of replacement but the departure in value.

Points of Law - Legal Principles in this Case for Police Students.

Parties may indeed stipulate in a contract to effectuate a purpose that performance of every term shall be a status of recovery.

View Full Betoken of Law

point of law

Facts. Plaintiff built a house for Defendant for the toll of $77,000 and sued to recover the residue due of $three,483.46. I of the specifications for construction was that all wrought iron pipe used must exist Reading piping. By the inadvertence of Plaintiff, non all pipe installed in the business firm was Reading pipe. When Defendant realized this, he had already begun to occupy the business firm. Nevertheless, he demanded that Plaintiff supercede the pipe with Reading pipe. Doing then would have required Plaintiff to demolish substantial parts of the firm and reconstruct information technology, which would have been a great expense to Plaintiff. He therefore refused and billed Accused for the remaining amount due for the structure. Defendant refused to pay, and Plaintiff initiated this action.

Result. Is Defendant entitled to the cost of replacement of the pipe for Plaintiff'southward breach of contract?

Held. No. Equity and fairness dictate that one who unintentionally commits a petty incorrect will non exist condemned to a fate so clearly out of proportion with the transgression. To allow Defendant to recover the cost of replacement of the pipage would exist unduly oppressive. Instead, Defendant will be adequately compensated past recovering the difference in value of a dwelling house with the Reading pipe and the value of the home, every bit it exists, with a different kind of pipe.

Dissent. Plaintiff, either intentionally or grossly negligently, failed to perform the contract. Defendant had the right to have it performed correctly. Therefore, he is entitled to replacement cost.

Discussion. A person is entitled to amercement that will permit him to consummate that which he contracted for every bit he intended it to be completed. Even so, where the toll of completion is grossly and unfairly disproportionate to the good to be attained, the measure of damages is the difference in value.