Jacobs and Young V. Kent 230 N.Y. 239, 129 NE 889, 23 A.L.R. 1429 II.
Court of Appeals of New York
Jan. 25, 1921, appeal was reversed and judgment of the trial term affirmed. Judge stipulated that the defendant could make whatever decision on material he deemed fit for his own home.
April 4th, 1919, judgment was reversed in favor of plaintiff, defendant appealed. Trial was by judge. Judgment was overturned, because information was disallowed in the jury trial.
Nov. 2nd, 1918, court ruled for defendant at jury trial. He was able to keep the $3,483.46 due on the contract, due to the fact not all material was as specified by the contract. IV.
A contract between the plaintiff and defendant was agreed upon on in 1913 for $77,000 and construction ceased in June 1914. A balance of $3,483.46 was due at that time. In March 1915, the defendant discovered that pipes were from a different manufacturer than originally designated in the contract. It was further discovered that only the first 1000 feet of pipe was inspected. That meant that roughly 1500 feet of pipe could not be determined without major demolition to the structure.
The plaintiff's stance is that all of the pipe was of the same standard, cost, and quality no matter which manufacturer it was from. He believes that he is due the full amount of the contract and that he has fulfilled the contract in full. He further believes that there can be no replacement of the goods without major demolition of the home. For that reason, he believes that it is not the intent of the defendant to replace the pipe. Therefore, he only would owe the difference in the pipe supplied and that which was installed. That price he deems as negligible.
The defendant disagrees and believes that the pipe must be from the manufacturer he stipulated in the contract.
‘I suppose it will be conceded that everyone has a right to build his house, his cottage or his store after such a model and in such style as...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document