Martin v. Schoenberger
8 Watts & Serg. 367 (1845)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A plaintiff cannot recover on an entire contract if they have only partially performed their obligations and have materially breached a key term of the agreement, unless performance was prevented by the defendant.
Facts:
- On March 13, 1839, Jacob Martin entered into a written agreement with the Reliance Transportation Company to act as its forwarding agent.
- Under the agreement, Martin was to receive and forward goods exclusively for the Reliance Transportation Company for all destinations west of Hollidaysburg.
- In exchange for Martin's services and his promise of exclusivity, the Reliance Transportation Company guaranteed that Martin's commissions would amount to at least $3000 for the season.
- During the term of the agreement, Martin forwarded goods for other companies and individuals to destinations west of Hollidaysburg, in direct violation of the exclusivity clause.
- Martin's actual commissions earned from his work for the Reliance Transportation Company amounted to only about $600.
Procedural Posture:
- Jacob Martin filed a lawsuit against the Reliance Transportation Company in the District Court (a trial court).
- The suit sought to recover the difference between the commissions Martin earned ($600) and the amount guaranteed by the contract ($3000).
- At trial, the judge instructed the jury that if they found Martin had forwarded goods for other lines in violation of the agreement, he could not recover on the guaranty.
- Following an adverse outcome (implied verdict for the defendant), Martin appealed the judgment to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
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 who has not fully performed their obligations under an entire contract, and has breached an exclusivity provision, have the right to sue to enforce the other party's promise under a guaranty clause in that same contract?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Burnside
No. A party who has failed to fully perform their part of an entire contract cannot recover on that contract. The court reasoned that this was an entire contract, and full performance by the plaintiff is a prerequisite to recovery. Martin's obligation to forward goods exclusively for the Reliance Transportation Company was a core part of the agreement. By shipping goods for other lines, he violated his engagement and thus could not enforce the company's corresponding obligation under the guaranty. The court rejected the argument that this breach should simply reduce the amount Martin could recover, stating that allowing a party to recover for partial performance of an entire contract would undermine the integrity of contracts and destroy "all confidence between man and man."
Analysis:
This case is a classic illustration of the traditional common law rule requiring complete performance for entire contracts. It establishes that a material breach by one party excuses the other party's performance and prevents the breaching party from suing on the contract. The decision emphasizes a strict, all-or-nothing approach, predating the more modern and equitable doctrines of substantial performance and severable contracts, which can allow for recovery even with minor breaches. This ruling underscores the importance of fulfilling all contractual duties before seeking to enforce the promises of the other party.
