Dissenting Opinion In The JY Vs. Kent Case
327 Words2 Pages
1. The dissenting opinion in the JY vs. Kent case is not compelling. Melvin, S. (2011), explains that the substantial performance rule provides protections for parties who perform contractual obligations in good faith. In this case, JY had built the Kent vacation home to specifications except for a minor mistake by one of the subcontractors. The substantial performance rule states that the contract cannot be changed to the extent that there was a change in value in the product that was used. The subcontractor used a different pipe than was specified, but the pipe was of the same quality and value of the pipe that was supposed to be used. It would make no sense to spend thousands of dollars replacing the pipe.
2. Kent could have put a condition