Carter v. Sherburne Corp.
Vermont Supreme Court
315 A.2d 870 (1974)
- Written by Megan Schwarz, JD
Facts
Sherburne Corporation (Sherburne) (defendant) entered into four contracts with Carter (plaintiff) for the development of property. Two of the contracts contained penalty provisions for late performance. In addition, the contracts contained a holdback provision that allowed Sherburne to retain ten percent of the contract amount for Carter’s non-compliance with the contracts. During construction, Sherburne constantly moved Carter from one contract to another. As a result, Carter failed to complete performance in the time allotted by the contracts and Sherburne withheld the final ten percent of the contact price. Carter sued for the remaining amount of money. The trial court held for Carter stating that Carter substantially complied with the terms of the contract because time was not of the essence. Additionally, any delays in Carter’s performance were a result of Sherburne’s actions. Sherburne appealed arguing that because time was of the essence, Carter failed to substantially comply with the terms of the contract and Sherburne was not required to pay Carter.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Shangraw, C.J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 802,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.