Jacob & Youngs v. Kent

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jacob & Youngs v. Kent, 230 N.Y. 239 (1921), is a famous contract law case by Judge Cardozo. It dealt with the matter of material breach versus substantial performance.

Contents 1 Facts 2 Result 3 Rule 3.1 Tautology

[edit] 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 rule. 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).

[edit] Result

Plaintiff builder wins and gets his money; he does not have to rip out the Cohoes pipe and replace it with Reading.

[edit] Rule

When the defect is insignificant, the court will find that there was 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.

[edit] 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.