Daly v. Copeland

Citations

• 67 Pa. Super. 91
• 1917 Pa. Super. LEXIS 349

Syllabus

<p>Contract — Incomplete performance — Failure of consideration— Fvidence.</p> <p>In an áction to recover the contract price of setting and cleaning stone work it appeared that plaintiffs made the defendants the following offer: “In reference to the Woodbury Trust Company’s building and additions to the ‘bank building at Woodbury, N. J., we propose to set, clean, etc.” The acceptance, also in writing, was as follows: “We .accept your estimate of July 22, 1915, for Trust Co. and Bank Bldg., Woodbury, for the sum of.” The defendants claimed that the plaintiffs had not cleaned the bank building, and that the cost of this work was in excess of $100. Evidence was admitted which tended to show that in addition to the trust company’s building there was a bank building and an extension, of it in the rear, and that the stone work was not cleaned on the old bank building. The court in trying the case without a jury allowed the defendants’ claim, of $100. Held, that the judgment should be affirmed.</p> <p>Where a contract is entire and there has been a substantial, although not a complete performance, a plaintiff may be permitted to recover, due allowance being made to the other party for the cost or value of the work not done.</p>