New York Court of Appeals - 193 N.Y. 349
In the 1908 case Clark v. West, a legal writer (plaintiff) sued a publisher (defendant) for not paying him for writing law books, as their contract stated he would be paid $2 per page plus royalties if he drank alcohol while working. After the work was complete and the publisher had accepted prior work without enforcing the 'no-drinking' clause the publisher claimed he didn't have to pay above the $2 per page because the writer drank alcohol while working which violated a clause in the contract.
The writer sued for breach of contract on the basis of waiver, and the court upheld Defendant's right to refuse payment. The writer (plaintiff) appealed.
The case went to the Court of Appeals of New York, and the court ruled in favor of the writer, stating that the publisher had accepted the writer's work and paid him royalties, essentially waiving the alcohol condition in their contract. The court emphasized that every contract involves good faith and fair dealing, and one party can waive a condition if they indicate they aren't enforcing it.
So, the publisher couldn't use the alcohol clause to avoid payment, and the court reversed the judgment that favored the publisher, sending the case back to the lower court for additional proceedings.
This case is significant because it shows how courts interpret contracts considering both their written terms and surrounding circumstances. It also underscores the importance of good faith and fair dealing in business transactions while balancing fairness, justice, and the autonomy of the parties involved.
The case involves a contract where the plaintiff agreed to abstain from alcohol while writing a book for the defendant in exchange for a higher compensation rate. The defendant published and sold the book despite the plaintiff's breach of the condition. The court found that the stipulation for total abstinence is a condition precedent, which can be waived by the defendant. If the defendant waived the stipulation, they cannot insist on the forfeiture of compensation, but can still claim damages for any breach of contract by the plaintiff. The lower court erred in paying the plaintiff at the lower rate without resolving the question of waiver. The doctrine of waiver applies when a party voluntarily relinquishes a known right, while the doctrine of equitable estoppel precludes a party from asserting a right to the detriment of another party who has relied on the former's conduct.
LSD+ gives you access to over 50,000 case briefs, more than anyone else. Be the first to email us the website of a case brief product that offers you more case briefs and we'll give you a free year of LSD+.
Unlimited access. Read as much content as you want during your trial with no device limitations. Cancel any time during your trial and keep access for the full 14 days.
Lawyers and judges love to use big words. And Latin, for some reason.
Highlight a legal term in LSD Briefs and get an instant, plain English definition. Try highlighting contract or specific performance. No need to search or read through a list of definitions, simply highlight the words you don’t know and our LSDefine integration will instantly give you a definition to any of over 30,000 legal terms.
DeepDive allows you to explore legal cases like never before. DeepDive offers multiple levels of case summaries, which empowers you to quickly and easily find the information you need to stay on top of readings. Easily navigate through summary levels and click on any text to get more detail, all the way down to the original legal case text.
Our proprietary state-of-the-art system can instantly brief over 6,000,000 US cases. That means we can probably brief that case that your professor assigned last night when she sent you a poorly scanned pdf and told you to read every third paragraph. Or maybe she uploaded it to Canvas and didn’t really tell you to read it, but you know you probably should. Tenure does wild things to good people.
Study groups are a great way to learn and explore a case. LSD has chat rooms for each case to let you ask questions across the community and hear what other students struggled with and how they put it all together. Learn the key points of every case from other LSD+ users and share your knowledge with LSD High Points.
Don’t settle for mistakes in briefs that have been there for 10 years and never fixed. Find an issue or something missing from a brief? Down vote and we will make improvements. All of our case brief editors graduated from from T14 law schools.