A builder put up a country house for more than $77,000. The contract called for pipe “of Reading manufacture.” Some of the pipe came from other factories. The owner refused to pay the last $3,483.46 until the pipe was replaced. The builder sued. The case, Jacob & Youngs v. Kent, was decided by the Court of Appeals of New York in 1921.
Judge Benjamin Cardozo ruled for the builder. Reading pipe differed from other brands “only by the name of the manufacturer stamped upon it.” Replacing it would cost a great deal. So the owner could claim only the difference in value, “which would be either nominal or nothing.”
The dissent said the owner “had a right to contract for what he wanted.” The majority used a different test: “We must weigh the purpose to be served.” American contract law calls the rule substantial performance.