Jacob & Youngs, Incorporated, Respondent v. George E. Kent, Appellant

Summary

The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment for the plaintiff, holding that the contractor's trivial and innocent omission of the specified pipe brand does not constitute a breach of a condition and that damages are measured by the difference in value, not the cost of replacement. The court also held that evidence showing the substituted pipe was of equivalent quality should have been admitted. Justice McLaughlin dissented, arguing that the omission was material and the plaintiff was not entitled to any payment.