Clark v. West
86 N.E. 1 (1908)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A condition precedent in a contract, which is incidental to the primary performance and not the core consideration, can be waived by the party for whose benefit it exists without requiring new consideration.
Facts:
- William Lawrence Clark (plaintiff) entered into a contract with the West Publishing Company (defendant) to write a series of law books.
- The contract stipulated that Clark would be paid at a rate of $2 per page.
- A separate provision stated that if Clark completely abstained from using intoxicating liquors during the contract's term, he would be paid an additional $4 per page.
- Clark wrote and delivered the manuscript for one book, which West accepted and published.
- During the writing process, Clark did not totally abstain from the use of intoxicating liquors.
- West was aware that Clark was consuming intoxicating liquors during the period of performance.
- Clark alleges that West, with this knowledge, repeatedly represented to him that he would still receive the full compensation of $6 per page.
- West ultimately paid Clark only the base rate of $2 per page, withholding the additional compensation.
Procedural Posture:
- Clark sued West in the New York Supreme Court, Special Term (trial court) to recover the additional compensation.
- West filed a demurrer (a motion to dismiss), arguing that Clark's complaint failed to state a cause of action because he admitted to breaching the abstinence condition.
- The Special Term overruled West's demurrer, allowing the case to proceed.
- West, as appellant, appealed to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court (intermediate appellate court).
- The Appellate Division reversed the Special Term's order, siding with West.
- The Appellate Division then certified questions of law to the New York Court of Appeals (the state's highest court) for final review.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a party's express representation that it will not enforce a forfeiture clause for a breached condition, made with full knowledge of the breach, constitute a valid waiver of that condition?
Opinions:
Majority - Werner, J.
Yes. A party's express representation that it will not enforce a forfeiture for a breached condition, made with full knowledge of the breach, constitutes a valid waiver of that condition. The court reasoned that the stipulation for total abstinence was a condition precedent to the additional payment, not the consideration for the contract itself. The primary consideration was the writing of the books. As a mere condition, it could be waived by West, the party for whose benefit it was included. A waiver is the intentional relinquishment of a known right and, unlike a contract modification, does not require new consideration. Clark's allegations that West repeatedly assured him of full payment despite knowing about his drinking, if proven, are sufficient to establish an express waiver, thus preventing West from enforcing the forfeiture.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the critical distinction between a contract's consideration and its conditions, establishing that a condition can be waived without new consideration. The decision reinforces the legal principle that courts will use doctrines like waiver to avoid harsh forfeitures, particularly when one party's conduct indicates an intention not to enforce a specific term. This precedent prevents a party from lulling another into continued performance under the belief a condition is excused, only to later enforce it strictly. It underscores that a party's express representations during performance can effectively remove a condition precedent from the agreement.
Unlock the full brief for Clark v. West