Jacob
& Young was hired to build a house for Kent.Kent specified a specific brand of pipe. Jacob &
Young built the house, but neglected to use the brand of pipe specified.
Kent
specified the pipe because his brother was a pipe manufacturer.
The
pipe met all specifications, it just wasn't the same brand.
Kent
found out about this a year after moving in and refused to pay the balance
of the contract. Jacob & Young sued.
Kent's
architect refused to certify the house as being complete unless the pipes
were replaced.
It
would have cost an enormous amount of money to replace the pipes since
the walls had already been put in.
The
Trial Court found for Jacob & Young.Kent appealed.
The
Trial Court found that there was no quality discrepancy between the
brands of pipe, and the use of the other brand was neither fraudulent nor
willful.
The
Appellate Court affirmed.
The
Appellate Court found that Jacob & Young default was unintentional
and trivial, and that they had substantially performed on the contract.
Kent
was entitled to recover the difference in the value of the house
resulting from the use of a different brand of pipe (if any), but other
than that, he was required to pay the full amount of the contract.
The
breach was not a condition of the
contract.Breaches that are
not conditions are atoned
for by calculating damages, they do not excuse the other party from performance.
