Ferrazano 1

Dan Ferrazano

Professor Barnes

BLAW Honors

Due: November 13th, 2017

Jacobs & Young V. Kent

Facts: The plaintiff; Jacob & Youngs Incorporated, built a house for the defendant, George Kent.

Within the contract between the two parties, there is a specification for the kind of piping used

during construction. “All wrought iron pipes must be well galvanized, lap welded pipe of the

grade known as ‘standard pipe, of Reading manufacturing.” The first shipment of piping was

confirmed to be from Reading by the supervisor himself. After the initial delivery, orders for

piping was made but did not specify the manufacturer. As a result, the plaintiff did not use

Reading brand piping for most of the house. The defendant did not notice this error until

construction had been completed, almost a year later. When the mismatch was found the

defendant refused to pay the plaintiff and demanded they redo the piping with Reading pipes.

Plaintiff: Jacob & Young brought Kent to court to pay for the rest of the house. They argue that

there is no real difference between the Reading brand pipe and the pipe that they used for

most of the house. “The brands installed, though made by other manufacturers, were the same

in quality, in appearance, in market value, and in cost as the brand stated… indeed, the same

thing, though manufactured in another place.” As such, the use of a similar pipe is extremely

insignificant. In addition, the effort it would take to replace all the pipes would not be worth it.
 Ferrazano 2

The defendant should have to pay for the remainder of the contract because they did a good

enough job. The pipes are going to perform just as well as the desired ones.

Defendant: The contract that was created for the construction of the defendant’s house has a

specific section asking for Reading galvanized pipes. The plaintiff signed the contractual

agreement, understanding exactly what the defendant wanted. “Under its contract it obligated

itself to use in the plumbing only pipe made by Reading Manufacturing Company.” The

defendant wanted what was agreed upon with the plaintiff. This means no substitute product

however similar it may be. As the steps of a contract go, there was an offer to build this house

as specified. The plaintiff accepted this with no counteroffer. The exchange was to be the

finished product for a certain amount of money. Why should the defendant pay for something

he didn’t ask for? Instead, Kent wants the correct pipes to replace the faux ones.

Decision: The court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, Jacobs & Young. “In the circumstances of the

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.” They agree with the

plaintiff that the cost and effort to switch the pipes wouldn’t be worth it. The pipes from

Reading and the pipes used during the project are practically the same. The court thinks the

defect is trivial, so the plaintiff did a good enough job building the house.

Dissent: One judge has a dissenting opinion from the ruling. “The plaintiff did not perform its

contract. Its failure to do so was either intentional or due to gross neglect.” The dissenting

judge agrees that use of any pipe but Readings was a breach of contract. The defendant wanted

all his plumbing to be Readings, not 2/5ths of it. The judge goes on to say that there wasn’t
 Ferrazano 3

even an explanation why they didn’t use Reading pipe and that is just not fair. “What his reason

was for requiring this kind of pipe is of no importance.” The plaintiff does not have a right to

demand payment for a job he didn’t do. The judge believes the judgement should be reversed.