Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court - 19 Mass. 267
In the 1824 case Stark v. Parker, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled on a disagreement between an employee and employer about a whole contract. This type of contract requires both parties to fully perform their duties and does not permit recovery for partial performance.
In this case, employee John Stark agreed to work on Thomas Parker's farm for one year for $120. Parker paid Stark some money upfront, but Stark left the job before the year ended without Parker's consent and through no fault of Parker's. Stark sued to get a portion of the pay for the work he did.
The jury held that John Stark could recover on quantum meruit, and Parker appealed.
On appeal, the court decided that the contract was whole and Stark could not receive compensation for his partial work. The court determined that if a contract is entire and has not yet been fully performed, any legal action must wait until complete performance occurs. The court also denied Stark's request to be paid based on the value of his work (quantum meruit) because he willingly broke the contract.
This case is important because it demonstrates the use of entire contracts in contract law. These contracts have strict requirements for both parties and don't allow changes or partial performance without both parties agreeing. Entire contracts also prevent parties from getting paid for partial work unless they have a valid reason for not fully performing their duties.
This legal case involves a contract dispute where the plaintiff sought compensation for partial performance of a one-year labor contract. The court held that the contract required the plaintiff to perform a condition precedent before having the right to sue the defendant. The defendant's obligation to pay was as entire as the plaintiff's obligation to serve, and the plaintiff must perform a year's service before being entitled to recover any payment under the contract. The lower court's ruling may have erred in allowing compensation for partial performance of a contract that was still subsisting. The court emphasized the importance of common understanding and usage in interpreting contracts and cited several analogous cases to support the common law doctrine.
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.