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.
Breach of contract is a legal cause of action and a type of civil wrong, in which a binding agreement or bargained-for exchange is not honored by one or more of the parties to the contract by non-performance or interference with the other party's performance.
If a contractor successfully demonstrates substantial performance, the owner remains obligated to fulfill payment, less any damages suffered as a result of the deficiencies in workmanship by the contractor. The principle is also found in the law of unilateral contracts. Unilateral contracts are contracts in which one party offers a promise in ...
For premium support please call: 800-290-4726 more ways to reach us
A.C. Shaw Construction v. Washoe County, 105 Nevada 913, 915, 784 P.2d 9, 10 (1989). [4] This rule is most prevalent in insurance law, when the insurer's breach of the implied covenant may give rise to a tort action known as insurance bad faith.
Today, it applies to more than one million construction workers on $200 billion of such projects, the administration said. Biden ordered the review of the labor law early in his administration. It ...
For example, if A promises to give B a unique sculpture in exchange for B painting A's house, but A then sells the sculpture to C before B begins the job, this act by A constitutes an anticipatory repudiation which excuses B from performing.
Jacob & Youngs, Inc. v. Kent, 230 N.Y. 239 (1921) is a case about a builder who used the wrong kind of piping in the construction of a house and the homeowner refused to pay. The court held that the builder was entitled to payment, as he had substantially performed the work, but the builder was subject to a deduction in payment for the ...