Confirm favorite deletion?
Contracts Keyed to Frier
Jacob & Youngs, Inc. v. Kent
Citation:230 N.Y. 239, 129 N.E. 889 (1921)
ProfessorMelissa A. Hale
CaseCast™ – "What you need to know"
Only StudyBuddy Pro offers the complete Case Brief Anatomy*
Access the most important case brief elements for optimal case understanding.
*Case Brief Anatomy includes: Brief Prologue, Complete Case Brief, Brief Epilogue
- The Brief Prologue provides necessary case brief introductory information and includes:
- Topic: Identifies the topic of law and where this case fits within your course outline.
- Parties: Identifies the cast of characters involved in the case.
- Procedural Posture & History: Shares the case history with how lower courts have ruled on the matter.
- Case Key Terms, Acts, Doctrines, etc.: A case specific Legal Term Dictionary.
- Case Doctrines, Acts, Statutes, Amendments and Treatises: Identifies and Defines Legal Authority used in this case.
- The Case Brief is the complete case summarized and authored in the traditional Law School I.R.A.C. format. The Pro case brief includes:
- Brief Facts: A Synopsis of the Facts of the case.
- Rule of Law: Identifies the Legal Principle the Court used in deciding the case.
- Facts: What are the factual circumstances that gave rise to the civil or criminal case? What is the relationship of the Parties that are involved in the case. Review the Facts of this case here:
Plaintiff is a general contractor that built a country residence for Defendant. The contract stated that Plaintiff was to be paid $77,000, and one specification in the contract was that all pipes used be manufactured in Reading, Pennsylvania. Plaintiff completed work in June 1914. In March 1915, Defendant noticed that some of the pipe was manufactured in other places besides Reading. Defendant demanded the pipe be replaced. Replacement of the pipe, however, would require substantial additional work and expense by Plaintiff. Additionally, the existing pipe was of the same quality as Reading pipe and was supplied based on an innocent mistake by Plaintiff caused by the inattention of its subcontractor. Plaintiff left the existing pipe untouched and asked for a certificate from Defendant that the final payment of $3,483.46 was due. Defendant refused to supply the certificate, and Plaintiff brought suit to recover damages. At trial, Plaintiff was not allowed to introduce evidence that the pipe installed was of the same quality as Reading pipe, and the jury entered a verdict for Defendant. The appellate court reversed and granted a new trial.
- Issue(s): Lists the Questions of Law that are raised by the Facts of the case.
- Holding: Shares the Court's answer to the legal questions raised in the issue.
- Concurring / Dissenting Opinions: Includes valuable concurring or dissenting opinions and their key points.
- Reasoning and Analysis: Identifies the chain of argument(s) which led the judges to rule as they did.