Jacob & Young v. Kent New York Court of Appeals 1921 1) Facts a) Plaintiff built a house for Defendant for the price of $77,000 and sued to recover the balance due of $3,483.46. One of the specifications for construction was that all wrought iron pipe used must be Reading pipe. By the inadvertence of Plaintiff, not all pipe installed in the house was Reading pipe. When Defendant realized this, he had already begun to occupy the house. Nevertheless, he demanded that Plaintiff replace the pipe with Reading pipe. Doing so would have required Plaintiff to demolish substantial parts of the house and reconstruct it, which would have been a great expense to Plaintiff. He therefore refused and billed Defendant for the remaining amount due for the construction. Defendant refused to pay, and Plaintiff initiated this action. 2) History a) The evidence was excluded and a directed verdict for the defendant b) Appellate division reversed and remanded 3) Issue a) Were the different materials a breach i) The defect was insignificant in its relation to the project ii) The courts have balanced equity and fairness; The difference in the materials received is nominal or nothing at all. TO force the plumber to redo them all at his cost would be astronomical iii) The true difference in value of the new pipes vs what he wanted is minimal iv) The rule that gives a remedy in cases of substantial performance with compensation for defects of trivial or inappreciable importance has been developed by the courts as an instrument of justice. v) Pipes were a promise not a condition. vi) A line cannot be drawn between what is important and what is trivial. Here, it appears after looking at Plaintiff’s evidence, the pipes were of similar quality illustrates that the discrepancy was trivial. 4) Judgment: Affirmed