Classic case 18.1 in our textbook is the case of Jacob & Youngs v. Kent (1921). It is a case every law student in the country reads. Mr. Kent hired builder Jacob and Youngs to build him a very nice home (see picture in slides) for approximately $77,000. In the contract, Mr. Kent was very specific that “all wrought-iron pipe must be well galvanized, lap welded pipe of the grade known as ‘standard pipe’ of Reading manufacture.” The pipe that was installed in the home met all of those requirements but was made by a different company than Reading. It was of the same quality, just a different company. It was an innocent mistake that was missed upon inspection by Mr. Kent’s own architect (It was common in those days to specify a grade of pipe by naming a brand that was of that grade). This issue was not discovered until after the home was complete and the plumbing was encased in the walls. When Jacob & Youngs went to ask for final payment of the balance due of $3483.46, Mr. Kent refused citing this breach.
Now, this is clearly a breach. They promised one thing, but delivered another. What should be the remedy? Should Jacob & Young be required to rip out the pipe and replace it with Reading pipe? That would result in a major loss for Jacob & Young. Should Mr. Kent receive no compensation? What is the right remedy here? Did Jacob & Youngs substantially perform or Materially breach? (remember here, “Material” means important, that it matters. Not “material” as in they used the wrong material in building the house)
