Case ID: ny_230/html/0656-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Per Curiam.\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Jacob & Youngs, Incorporated, Respondent, v. George E. Kent, Appellant.
    (Submitted February 28, 1921;
    decided March 8, 1921.)
    Motion for re-argument. (See 230 N. Y. 239.)
   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.