Stewart v. Newbury case brief summary
115 N.E. 984 (1917)
CASE FACTS
Appellants, partners in a pipe fitting business, hired respondent, a contractor and builder to construct a building. Nothing was said in writing about the time or manner of payments respondent was to receive for completed work. Respondent commenced work in July and submitted a bill in late September for work completed. Appellants refused to pay the bill and respondent stopped work. A jury entered a verdict for respondent for the amount due for the work performed. Appellants alleged that the jury instruction was improper.
DISCUSSION
The judgment entitling respondent to payment for work performed was reversed and case was remanded, as respondent had not substantially performed under the contract, therefore he was not entitled to partial payment.
Suggested law school course materials, hornbooks, and guides for Contract Law
Shop Amazon for the best prices on Law School Course Materials
.
115 N.E. 984 (1917)
CASE SYNOPSIS
Appellants sought review of the judgment
of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the second judicial
department (New York), affirming a judgment in favor of respondent in
an action by respondent alleging damages for breach of
contract.CASE FACTS
Appellants, partners in a pipe fitting business, hired respondent, a contractor and builder to construct a building. Nothing was said in writing about the time or manner of payments respondent was to receive for completed work. Respondent commenced work in July and submitted a bill in late September for work completed. Appellants refused to pay the bill and respondent stopped work. A jury entered a verdict for respondent for the amount due for the work performed. Appellants alleged that the jury instruction was improper.
DISCUSSION
- The court agreed, holding that where a contract was made to perform work and no agreement was made as to payment, the work must be substantially performed before payment was demanded.
- Respondent had not substantially performed; therefore he was not entitled to payment.
The judgment entitling respondent to payment for work performed was reversed and case was remanded, as respondent had not substantially performed under the contract, therefore he was not entitled to partial payment.
Suggested law school course materials, hornbooks, and guides for Contract Law
Shop Amazon for the best prices on Law School Course Materials
.
No comments:
Post a Comment