Plante vs. Jacobs (Term Paper Sample)

Name: Tutors name: Subject: Date: Plante vs. Jacobs Methods of discharging a contract A contract can be discharged due to the following reasons; (1) by performance (complete or partial), (2) mutual agreement, (3) conditions precedent and subsequent, disability to perform or commercial impracticability. Discharge by performance A contract is terminated after complete performance of the job intended. However, in some cases, a contract may be terminated due to partial performance or failure to meet every specification of the contactor. Traditionally the plaintiff was allowed suits only if there was no complete performance of the job. But this has changed now as one can sue the contracted party if some parts of the agreement were not met. In this case, one is required to: completely fulfill all the terms of the agreement, show a justifiable effort to fulfill all the requirements and lastly, not to deviate from the agreed terms of the contract. Substantial performance means that one can only be paid the amount by which he has fulfilled all the specifications of the contract less the amount he breached. In other words one is not justified to deny the contracted party his pay when there was just a minor mistake committed. One can also bring a suit against a party in the contract in situations where the breach is material. In this case a material breach is usually substantial and intentional. The law also allows a party to sue for damages if the contracted party did not perform his or her job within the specified time. The of Plante vs. Jacobs Action: A dispute arose when Jacobs complained that Plante had breached the terms of the contract by a misplacing a wall resulting in a smaller living room. Facts: Plante had to sue Jacobs for failing to pay the amount owed to him. According to the Plante, they had substantially performed for that reason; it was not right for Jacobs to refuse to make payments owed to him. Trial court: The defendant disagreed with charges brought to him by stating that he had suffered damages as the plaintiff had underperformed. Appellant court (decision): The court ruled in favor of the aggrieved party stating that the degree of damages caused was not material and thus it was unfair for the defendant not to fulfill his obligations of making payments. Issues: Why did the trial court award the plaintiff $ 4,152.90 when the amount owed was $26,765? Holding: The case was ruled in favor of the plaintiff since it was found that the defendants had not called for alteration of the wall during construction and it was also determined that tear...