Jacob & Youngs, Inc. v. Kent
230 N.Y. 239, 23 A.L.R. 1429, 129 N.E. 889 (1921)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Where a party substantially performs a contract in good faith, an innocent and trivial deviation from the contract's terms does not constitute a breach of a condition requiring forfeiture. The proper remedy for such a minor defect is an allowance for the resulting damage, measured by the diminution in value rather than the cost of replacement if that cost would be grossly and unfairly disproportionate to the benefit attained.
Facts:
- The plaintiff, a builder, constructed a country residence for the defendant at a cost of over $77,000.
- The contract specified that all wrought iron pipe must be 'of Reading manufacture.'
- After construction was complete and the defendant had occupied the house for several months, he discovered that some of the installed pipe was from manufacturers other than Reading.
- The plaintiff's use of the non-specified pipe was the result of an unintentional oversight by a subcontractor and was not fraudulent or willful.
- The non-conforming pipe was of the same quality, appearance, market value, and cost as the specified Reading pipe.
- Most of the pipe was encased within the walls of the completed structure.
- Replacing the pipe would require the demolition of substantial parts of the finished house at great expense.
- The defendant's architect directed the plaintiff to replace all the non-conforming pipe, which the plaintiff refused to do.
Procedural Posture:
- The plaintiff (builder) sued the defendant (homeowner) in a New York trial court to recover an unpaid balance on the construction contract.
- At trial, the court excluded the plaintiff's evidence that the substituted pipe was of the same quality as the specified pipe.
- The trial court directed a verdict in favor of the defendant.
- The plaintiff appealed to the Appellate Division, an intermediate appellate court.
- The Appellate Division reversed the trial court's judgment and ordered a new trial.
- The defendant then appealed that decision to the Court of Appeals of New York, the state's highest court.
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 contractor who deviates from a contract in a trivial and unintentional manner, where correction would require a grossly disproportionate expense, forfeit the right to payment for failing to strictly perform the contract's terms?
Opinions:
Majority - Cardozo, J.
No, a party who deviates from a contract in a trivial and unintentional manner does not forfeit the right to payment. An omission that is both trivial and innocent will not be treated as a breach of a condition leading to forfeiture, but will instead be remedied by an allowance for the resulting damage. The court reasoned that in complex contracts, perfect performance is not always practical or intended by the parties. The law balances considerations of equity and fairness against the desire for strict adherence, and will not imply an intent to inflict 'oppressive retribution' for 'venial faults.' The court must weigh factors like the purpose to be served, the excuse for deviation, and the cruelty of enforcing strict adherence. Here, the deviation was not willful and did not frustrate the contract's purpose. Therefore, the doctrine of substantial performance applies. The measure of damages is not the cost of replacement, which would be grossly disproportionate to the benefit, but the difference in value, which in this case is 'nominal or nothing.'
Dissenting - McLaughlin, J.
Yes, a party who fails to strictly perform a contract's explicit terms forfeits the right to payment. The plaintiff failed to perform its contract, and this failure amounted to gross neglect. The defendant had a right to contract for precisely what he wanted, and his reasons are irrelevant. The fact that the substituted pipe may be 'just as good' is not an answer; the defendant contracted for Reading pipe and was entitled to it. To hold otherwise is to rewrite the contract for the parties and encourage contractors to violate their agreements. The rule of substantial performance does not apply here because the plaintiff failed to meet the condition upon which payment was due. The plaintiff agreed to the terms and must be held to them.
Analysis:
This case establishes the modern doctrine of substantial performance in American contract law, particularly for construction contracts. It represents a significant shift from the common law's harsh 'perfect tender' rule, which required strict and absolute adherence to all contract terms. By introducing a flexible, fairness-based standard, the court prevents a party from suffering a massive forfeiture due to a minor, good-faith error. The decision's impact is twofold: it defines when a non-breaching party must still perform (i.e., pay), and it establishes that the measure of damages for such a breach is diminution in value, not cost of completion, when the latter would result in economic waste.
