Contract Law 75 V American Standard v Schectman

TL;DR

American Standard contracted with Schekman for demolition and excavation work, but Schekman did not fully comply with the contract. The court ruled that damages should be based on cost of completion rather than diminution in value.

Transcript

the next case American Standard versus sheckman again deals with a case of incomplete performance but it comes to exactly the opposite conclusion from PV house which we saw in the last lecture and Jacob and Young's versus Kent which we saw in the beginning of the course the plaintiff in this case is American Standard which ran a pig iron manufactur... Read More

Key Insights

• 💼 Different cases have different rulings on the measure of damages in incomplete performance situations.
• 🧑‍🏭 The intentionality of the breach and the distinction between subjective and objective value are factors considered by the court.
• ❓ The distinction between main and incidental purposes of the contract can also impact the measure of damages.
• 🛟 Cost of completion and diminution in value damages serve different purposes in compensating the plaintiff.

Questions & Answers

Q: What was the main issue in the case of American Standard v. Schekman?

The main issue in this case was the incomplete performance by Schekman in demolishing and grading the property.

Q: What measure of damages did the court award to American Standard?

The court awarded American Standard damages based on the cost of completion, as opposed to the diminution in value of the property.

Q: How did Justice Hancock distinguish this case from Jacob and Young's v. Kent?

Justice Hancock argued that the intentional breach by Schekman, as opposed to the inadvertent substitution in Jacob and Young's, justified the cost of completion damages.

Q: Why did the court reject the argument of economic waste in this case?

The court rejected the argument of economic waste by stating that a landowner has the right to build something of their choice, even if it diminishes the value of the land.

Q: How did the court differentiate between main and incidental purposes of the contract?

The court claimed that grading the property was a central purpose of the contract between American Standard and Schekman, rather than an incidental requirement.

Summary & Key Takeaways

• American Standard contracted with Schekman to demolish and grade their property, but Schekman did not complete the work as specified.

• American Standard sold the property for nearly its fair market value, despite the incomplete work.

• The court ruled that American Standard was entitled to damages based on the cost of completion, rather than diminution in value.