Lexplug logoLexplug

London Bucket Co. v. Stewart

Court of Appeals of Kentucky
237 S.W.2d 509 (1951)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

Courts will not grant specific performance for a breach of a construction contract when money damages are an adequate remedy, partly because of the court's incapacity to effectively supervise the performance of the work.


Facts:

  • Stewart entered into a contract with the London Bucket Company to furnish and install a heating system for a large motel.
  • The contract stipulated that London Bucket Company would "guarantee to heat this said court to 75 degrees in winter, and to supervise all work."
  • Stewart alleged that London Bucket Company installed the system in an "incompleted, unskilled, unworkmanlike manner."
  • Stewart claimed the installed system was made of inferior materials and failed to adequately heat the motel as promised in the contract.

Procedural Posture:

  • Stewart sued London Bucket Company in a Kentucky court of equity.
  • Stewart's petition sought both specific performance and money damages.
  • The trial court required Stewart to elect his remedy; he chose specific performance and dismissed his claim for damages without prejudice.
  • London Bucket Company's demurrer to the petition was overruled by the trial court.
  • After a trial, the chancellor (trial court judge) decreed specific performance, ordering London Bucket Company to comply with the contract in its entirety.
  • London Bucket Company, as appellant, appealed the judgment to the Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

Locked

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Is specific performance an appropriate remedy to compel a contractor to complete the installation of a heating system in a workmanlike manner?


Opinions:

Majority - Stanley, Commissioner

No. Specific performance is not an appropriate remedy for the breach of a contract to perform construction or installation services. The court held that the general rule is that contracts for building construction will not be specifically enforced. The two primary reasons for this rule are that 1) money damages are ordinarily an adequate remedy for the breach, and 2) courts are not equipped to effectively superintend the performance of such contracts. The court distinguished this case from precedents involving matters of great public interest, stating that this was a standard building contract dispute where the plaintiff's remedy lies in an action at law for damages.



Analysis:

This decision reinforces the traditional judicial reluctance to order specific performance for contracts involving services, particularly in the construction context. It solidifies the principle that the inadequacy of a legal remedy (damages) is a high bar that is not met simply because calculating damages may be difficult. The court's emphasis on the 'incapacity of the court to superintend performance' provides a strong practical justification for the rule, preventing courts from becoming entangled in the day-to-day management of construction projects. This case serves as a clear precedent that in disputes over defective or incomplete construction, the proper course of action is to sue for monetary damages to cover the cost of repair or completion by another party.

🤖 Gunnerbot:
Query London Bucket Co. v. Stewart (1951) directly. You can ask questions about any aspect of the case. If it's in the case, Gunnerbot will know.
Locked
Subscribe to Lexplug to chat with the Gunnerbot about this case.

Unlock the full brief for London Bucket Co. v. Stewart