Quimbee logo
DMCA.com Protection Status
From our private database of 16,800+ case briefs...

Fay v. Moore

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
104 A. 686 (1918)


Facts

Moore (defendant) hired Fay (plaintiff), a contractor, to construct a building. Their contract provided that Fay would be paid only after the project’s architect issued a certificate of completion. The contract also stated that no alterations would be made to the contract’s specifications without written instructions from the architect. When the building was practically finished, Fay requested a certificate of completion from the architect. The architect refused to issue a certificate of completion on the grounds that the construction had not been performed in conformance with the contract’s requirements. First, the contract called for wood corner bead but did not specify a style. A letter from the architect to Fay indicated that Moore was unhappy with the style of corner bead that Fay had used. Instead, Moore wanted a style that was impractical and impossible to find. Second, the contract called for white pine window sashes. Fay installed chestnut window sashes, at the architect’s request, in order to better match the other interior finishes. Fay claimed he had completed all required work on the building, but the architect continued to refuse to issue a certificate of completion. Moore hired a new contractor to complete the work that he believed Fay had failed to do. Fay sued Moore for payment under the contract. Moore argued that Fay had failed to fully perform the terms of their contract because Fay did not obtain a certificate of completion from the architect and did not meet certain specifications for style and materials. Fay’s suit was tried three times. The first two trials resulted in a judgment in favor of Moore notwithstanding the verdict. At the third trial, the jury found that Fay had not willfully or intentionally departed from the contract’s specifications. Additionally, the jury found that the parties waived the requirement that alterations to the contract be made in writing when the architect instructed Fay to use chestnut wood for the window sashes. Finally, the jury found that Fay had substantially performed the terms of the contract. The trial court entered judgment in favor of Fay. Moore appealed.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Frazer, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 449,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 449,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 16,800 briefs, keyed to 224 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.

Questions & Answers


Have a question about this case?

Sign up for a free 7-day trial and ask it

Sign up for a FREE 7-day trial