Skip to main content
· 3/18/1912

Pressy v. McCornack

Citations

  • 235 Pa. 443
  • 84 A. 427
  • 1912 Pa. LEXIS 568

Syllabus

<p>Contract — Building contracts — Substantial performance — Province of court and jury.</p> <p>1. Where a party acting honestly, and intending to fulfill his contract, performs it substantially, but fails in some comparatively unimportant particulars, the other party -will not be permitted to enjoy the fruits of such imperfect performance without paying a fair compensation according to the contract, receiving a credit for any loss or inconvenience suffered.</p> <p>2. There must in every case be substantial performance of the contract, and unless there be substantial compliance, there can be no recovery; but, whether there has been substantial performance, depends upon the character of the changes or alterations complained of, whether they materially affect the completed structure and were in good faith honestly intended, to fulfill the contract. Whether the party acted in good faith,'and whether the departures were material are generally questions for the jury. This is always true if the facts relating to the good faith of the plaintiff and the materiality of the changes or alterations are in dispute.</p> <p>3. In an action to recover a balance on a building contract where there is evidence, although disputed, that the owner had authorized the contractor to lower the elevation of houses which were being built under the contract, and as a consequence certain changes in the cellar windows followed as a necessary consequence, the question of substantial compliance is for the jury.</p> <p>4. Such a case is also for the jury where an explanation of a failure to provide certain joists of the size specified is consistent with an honest intention to faithfully perform the contract, and the evidence shows that this defect was easily remedied.</p> <p>Contract — Building contract — Time limit — Delay.</p> <p>5. Where a building contract provides a time limit, but the contractor after the expiration of the time limit, has been permitted to continue the work and receives paymen

Judges: Elkin, Fell, Mestrezat, Moschzisker, Potter

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.