Brief 7 - Kelsey Jans FRL 201 2/3/08 Case Brief 17.1 p. 326...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Kelsey Jans FRL 201 2/3/08 Case Brief 17.1 p. 326 In the case, Jacob & Youngs V. Kent, the court has to emphasize the fact that there is no exact formula for deciding when a contract has been substantially performed. A country residence was constructed by Jacob and Youngs for the defendant at a projected cost of $77,000 and sued to recover $3, 483.46 that had not been paid. The defendant had occupied this dwelling in 1914 and had complained in 1915 that the pipe was a product of another factory which was not made in the reading. The plaintiff was specifically told by the architect to complete the work anew. This plumbing was encased in the walls and was only exposed in a few places. The plaintiff asked for a certificate for the final payment while the work was untouched. The certificate was refused and was followed by this suit in a New York state court. Evidence was supported in court that the omission of a prescribed brand was neither fraudulent nor willful. It was further stated that it was the result of the
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Image of page 2
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This note was uploaded on 03/11/2008 for the course FRL 201 taught by Professor Lundsford during the Spring '08 term at Cal Poly Pomona.

Page1 / 2

Brief 7 - Kelsey Jans FRL 201 2/3/08 Case Brief 17.1 p. 326...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 2. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online