Jacob & Youngs v. Kent - Case Brief PDF

Preview

Summary

Case Brief...

Description

Contracts II

Class 16

Jacob & Youngs v. Kent Court: Court of Appeals of New York (1921)

Facts: Jacob & Youngs (PL) built a country residence for Kent (DF) at costs upwards of $77,000, and now sues to recover a balance of $3,483, which is unpaid. The DF claims defective performance with the plumbing work as he discovered that some of the pipe, instead of being the contractspecified Reading, was another substitute brand.

Issues: Whether the omission was “trivial and innocent” or “important and significant.”

Procedural History: The trial court granted the DF a directed verdict, which was reversed by the Appellate Division, who granted a new trial.

Judgement: Order for a new trial Affirmed.

Reasoning: The court stated that a trivial and innocent omission will sometimes be atoned for by allowance of the resulting damage and will not always be the breach of a condition to be followed by forfeiture. However, an important breach may allow for damages by the DF (non-performance of payment in this case). Considerations partly of justice and partly of presumable intention are to tell us whether this promise shall be put in one class or the other. The line cannot be set by formula, in the nature of the case precise boundaries are impossible. The court held that this issue was an issue of fact, which must be decided by a jury.

Rules: An omission will allow for damages when the breach is “important” as opposed to “trivial and innocent.”...