Jacob & Youngs v. Kent
Court of Appeals of New York, 1921
FACTS: Defendant, Kent, contracted with plaintiff, Jacob & Youngs to build defendant a home. Defendant specified that when constructing the plumbing, plaintiff use galvanized, wrought-iron pipe of the Reading brand. Plaintiff did not use the Reading brand pipe, but the pipe plaintiff used was commensurate in quality. Upon finding out of the substitution, defendant requested to do the job over again using the Reading pipe; plaintiff refused, as this would have resulted in great expense to the plaintiff. Defendant refused to pay the complete cost of the construction.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY: Plaintiff filed suit in trial court to recover the unpaid balance. Trial court found for the defendant. During the initial trial, the plaintiff was not permitted to introduce evidence proving that the pipe plaintiff used was the same quality as the Reading brand. Plaintiff appealed to the intermediate state court, and the trial court’s decision was reversed. Defendant appealed to the Court of Appeals of New York in 1921.
ISSUE: Whether a party to a construction contract who stipulates that materials used must be of a certain brand is entitled to damages if a contractor substitutes material that is the same in quality but different in brand.
HOLDING: A party to a construction contract who stipulates that materials used must be of a certain brand is not entitled to damages if a contractor substitutes material that is the same in quality but different in brand.
JUDGMENT: The Court of Appeals of New York affirmed the decision of the intermediate trial court in favor of the plaintiff.
REASONING: The plaintiff did not act fraudulently or willfully in using an alternate pipe. Because the pipe was of a commensurate quality to the Reading brand requested - evidence that the court concluded should have been admitted at the first trial - there was little or no damage to defendant.
Court of Appeals of New York, 1921
FACTS: Defendant, Kent, contracted with plaintiff, Jacob & Youngs to build defendant a home. Defendant specified that when constructing the plumbing, plaintiff use galvanized, wrought-iron pipe of the Reading brand. Plaintiff did not use the Reading brand pipe, but the pipe plaintiff used was commensurate in quality. Upon finding out of the substitution, defendant requested to do the job over again using the Reading pipe; plaintiff refused, as this would have resulted in great expense to the plaintiff. Defendant refused to pay the complete cost of the construction.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY: Plaintiff filed suit in trial court to recover the unpaid balance. Trial court found for the defendant. During the initial trial, the plaintiff was not permitted to introduce evidence proving that the pipe plaintiff used was the same quality as the Reading brand. Plaintiff appealed to the intermediate state court, and the trial court’s decision was reversed. Defendant appealed to the Court of Appeals of New York in 1921.
ISSUE: Whether a party to a construction contract who stipulates that materials used must be of a certain brand is entitled to damages if a contractor substitutes material that is the same in quality but different in brand.
HOLDING: A party to a construction contract who stipulates that materials used must be of a certain brand is not entitled to damages if a contractor substitutes material that is the same in quality but different in brand.
JUDGMENT: The Court of Appeals of New York affirmed the decision of the intermediate trial court in favor of the plaintiff.
REASONING: The plaintiff did not act fraudulently or willfully in using an alternate pipe. Because the pipe was of a commensurate quality to the Reading brand requested - evidence that the court concluded should have been admitted at the first trial - there was little or no damage to defendant.
No comments:
Post a Comment