Summary of Jacob & Youngs v. Kent
Court of Appeals of New York, 1921.
Facts: built country residence for D and due to some oversight, installed some other brand of plumbing pipes than the ones promised. ? sues for the balance due in the amount of $3,483.46.
Issue: Should D be compensated because he didn’t get the same brand of pipes installed?
Rationale: According to the court, “We must weigh the purpose to be served, the desire to be gratified, the excuse for deviation from the letter, the cruelty of enforced adherence." In the current case, the measure of the allowance is not the cost of replacement, which would be great, but the difference in value, which would be either nominal or nothing. ? performed the substantial part of the performance that he had promised and should be compensated.