Legal Ethics

Jacob & Youngs v. Kent the new court appeals found that Jacob & Youngs had substantially performed the contract. To what if any remedy was Kent entitled?

I am not sure I agree with the court of appeals finding that Jacob had substantially performed the contract. There was a different type of piping used than what the contract required. I think Kent should be entitled to some monetary compensation since the piping installed wasn't to the contract specifications and it would be a great expense on the builders end to replace all of the piping in the house. Perhaps a good ruling would be for Kent to pay half of the $3,483 bill since Jacobs did do work for Kent he should get paid, however he made a mistake that wasn't to contract so he shouldn't be entitled to his full pay since the job wasn't done to contract specifications. In my opinion a minor failure to perform cannot be excused. The omission that Jacob made is trivial and may or may not be willful. Our text says that substantial performance "does not vary greatly from the performance promised in a contract" therefore the ruling is subject to a judge and jury.

A requirement of substantial performance is good faith. Did Jacob & Youngs substantially perform all of the terms of the contract in good faith? Why or why not?

No, good faith requires honest in fact, which was something that Jacob failed to do. He lied or made a mistake and used the wrong piping. If Jacob had noticed the wrong piping was going into the house he should have brought it to Kent's attention. Kent had no knowledge of the piping mistake until after he had moved in.

Clarkson, K. W., Miller, R. L., & Cross, F. B. (2012). Business law: text and cases: legal, ethical, global, and corporate environment (12th ed.). Mason, OH: South-Western Cengage Learning.