LAW.coLAW.co

Jacob & Youngs, Incorporated, Respondent, v. George E. Kent, Appellant

New York Court of Appeals1921-03-08
230 N.Y. 656

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion

majority opinion

Per Curiam.

The court did not overlook the specification which provides that defective work shall be replaced. The promise to replace, • like the promise to 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.