Contract Law Vs. Kent Case

1949 Words8 Pages
Contract law has set out to provide a healthy trade environment. Contracts are promises enforced by the law, with the support of something of value that has a legal purpose. It is an agreement between parties, formed by the elements: offer and acceptance, with all parties having the capacity to perform obligations enforceable by law. There are instances where the enforcement of a contract would bring about gains or losses to society and commerce. In the Jacob & Youngs, Incorporated vs. George E. Kent case, Jacob & Youngs, the plaintiff, claims that there was a breach of a clause in the contract with the defendant, George E. Kent. The clause stated that any work that is either defective or not in accordance with specifications will be…show more content…
Also, the replacement of the piping would have resulted in the wasting away of materials that went into the construction of the house. To the courts, and in my view, this would not have been the best allocation of resources in society as the time, and labour that went into the development would be sunk. The relief that the plaintiff obtains the remaining balance for building the house promotes society’s well being so that honest mistakes, as long as their costs are not substantially great, are forgiven and that unconscionable judgments are not made. The Osprey LLC vs. Kelly-Moore Paint Co case primarily deals with the use of language in a contract. The defendant, Kelly-Moore, leased commercial property from Osprey, the plaintiff, under a fifteen-year contract with two five-year renewal options. The clause in the contract stated that notice of the renewal of the lease “shall be given in writing and may be delivered either personally or by depositing the same in the United States mail…” Kelly-Moore faxed the second renewal to Osprey but Osprey claims to have never received it and sued Kelly Moore for breaching the contract. The court reasoned that the faxed delivery is sufficient enough to renew the lease. Justice Kauger delivered the majority opinion that examined the elements of this binding agreement. In this examination, the court used a two-step analysis to determine whether it would be fair to rule
Open Document