Jacob Youngs, Incorporated v. . Kent
Jacob Youngs, Incorporated v. . Kent
130 N.E. 933; 230 N.Y. 656; 1921 N.Y. LEXIS 920
(North Eastern Reporter)
Jacob Youngs, Incorporated v. . Kent
Opinion of the Court
The court did not overlook the specification which provides that defective work shall be replaced. The promise to replace, • like the promise to *657 install, is to be viewed, not as a condition, but as independent and collateral, when the defect is trivial and innocent. The law does not nullify the covenant, but restricts the remedy to damages.
The motion for a re-argument should be denied.
His cock, Ch. J., Cardozo, Pound, McLaughlin, Crane and Andrews, JJ., concur.
Motion denied.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.