Ads
related to: breach of contract remedies new york state
Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Jacob & Youngs, Inc. v. Kent, 230 N.Y. 239 (1921) is an American contract law case of the New York Court of Appeals with a majority opinion by Judge Benjamin N. Cardozo.The case addresses several contract principles including applying the doctrine of substantial performance in preventing forfeiture and determining the appropriate remedy following a partial or defective performance.
A contract lays down what must be done, what cannot be done, and when it must be done. If what was prescribed has not been done within the stipulated or reasonable period, there has been a breach of contract. A further form of breach of contract is conduct indicating an unwillingness or inability to perform an obligation arising from that contract.
The law of contracts varies from state to state; there is nationwide federal contract law in certain areas, such as contracts entered into pursuant to Federal Reclamation Law. The law governing transactions involving the sale of goods has become highly standardized nationwide through widespread adoption of the Uniform Commercial Code .
Inducing a breach of contract was a tort of accessory liability, and an intention to cause a breach of contract was a necessary and sufficient requirement for liability; a person had to know that he was inducing a breach of contract and to intend to do so; that a conscious decision not to inquire into the existence of a fact could be treated as ...
The accord agreement must be transacted on a new agreement. It must therefore have the essential terms of a contract, (parties, subject matter, time for performance, and consideration). If there is a breach of the accord there will be no "satisfaction" which will give rise to a breach of accord.
Hawkins v. McGee, 84 N.H. 114, 146 A. 641 (N.H. 1929) the "Case of the Hairy Hand" in New Hampshire state case law. Loss of chance in English law; Restatement (Second) of ContractW; Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 344(a), Purpose of Remedies; Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 347, Measure of Damages in General; Uniform Commercial Code (UCC)
Breach of promise is a common-law tort, abolished in many jurisdictions. It was also called breach of contract to marry , [ 1 ] and the remedy awarded was known as heart balm . From at least the Middle Ages to the early 20th century, many jurisdictions regarded a man's promise of engagement to marry a woman as a legally binding contract .
"Damages" are monetary compensation for loss. In contract [83] and tort, [84] damages will be awarded if the breach of contract (or breach of duty) causes foreseeable loss. By contrast, a fraudulent misrepresenter is liable in the common law tort of deceit for all direct consequences, whether or not the losses were foreseeable. [85]