Chapter 8: Rethinking Jacob Youngs v Kent
Jacob and Youngs v. Kent has long been a staple in Contracts casebooks. This chapter makes three contributions. First, it demonstrates that Cardozo broke no new ground. The law involving willfulness and substantial completion in building contracts had been around for half a century. The recognition of value of completion when the cost substantially exceeded the value was also well established. Second, it examines the record and concludes that Cardozo’s decision was justified. In particular it resolves two puzzles: (a) why did both the majority and dissent ignore the condition that the architect provide a certificate of completion; and (b) why didn’t Kent counterclaim for the full cost of completion? Finally, it considers how modern contract forms produced by the American Institute of Architects deal with the problem of deviations.
You are not authenticated to view the full text of this chapter or article.
Elgaronline requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books or journals. Please login through your library system or with your personal username and password on the homepage.
Non-subscribers can freely search the site, view abstracts/ extracts and download selected front matter and introductory chapters for personal use.
Your library may not have purchased all subject areas. If you are authenticated and think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.