Dashboard
Quick Access
My Profile
Recent Decisions
Graphs
Search
LSD Proofreader
Articles & Wisdom
Research
Law Schools
Rankings
Search
Articles & Wisdom
Applicants
Admissions Graphs
Recent Decisions
Soft Tiers
LSAT
Students
LSD Briefs
Student Loans
Articles & Wisdom
Creep a rando
LSD+
Sign in
Warning
Info
🏅 UnreasonableWoman, SLS '24 |
0
0
Jacob & Youngs v. Kent
230 N.Y. 239 (N.Y. 1921)
Help us make LSD better
Tags:
Contracts
,
Material breach
,
Substantial performance
tl;dr:
Defendant specifically asked contractors to use Reading pipe when remodeling his home. P did not use Reading pipe.
IRAC
Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion
🤯 High points 🤯
Key points contributed by students on LSD
Sign in to share
Facts & Holding
Facts:
Plaintiff built a home for Defendant but used pipes other...
Holding:
Affirmed. When the difference in value between the materials contracted...
Jacob & Youngs v. Kent
Chat for Jacob & Youngs v. Kent
Brief
General
>T14
Big mad
DMs
Visit a user's profile start a DM.
DMs will become an
LSD+
exclusive after the beta testing period.
brief-236
👍
Chat vibe: 0
👎
Help us make LSD better!
Tell us what's important to you