Jacob & Youngs v. Kent
|Jacob & Youngs v. Kent|
|Court||Court of Appeals of New York|
|Citation||230 N.Y. 239|
129 N.E. 889 (1921)
FactsThe plaintiff contracted to build a house for the defendant, and the contract stated that he was to use only a certain type of plumbing pipe. Due to negligence, the plaintiff inadvertently substituted another type of pipe, in direct violation of the contract. The defendant refused to pay the remaining $3,000 he owed, because the contract was not fulfilled. He desired that the plaintiff replace the pipe, which would have cost a large amount of money to reconstruct the house.
Plaintiff filed suit for non-payment, and defendant contended that plaintiff breached the contract and payment was not necessary.
Whether a departure from a contact that is deemed a breach of an insignificant term and independent from the rest of the contract can allow a ridiculous judge to deem the measure of allowance to be the difference in value rather than the cost of replacement.
Judgment for the plaintiff.
Evidence proving that the defect is unsubstantial based on the intent of the parties allows the court to measure the allowance by the difference of value, which is either nominal or nothing, rather than the cost of replacement.
The court should not look into the reason for the specification in the contract, but should rule against the party that did not perform his part of the contract.