Kenford Co. v. County of Erie
New York Court of Appeals
67 N.Y.2d 257 (1986)

- Written by Josh Lee, JD
Facts
The County of Erie (defendant) entered into a contract with Kenford Company, Inc., (plaintiff) and Dome Stadium, Inc., (DSI) (plaintiff) in 1969 for the construction of a domed-stadium facility near Buffalo, New York. Under the contract, Kenford and DSI were required to begin construction within 12 months, and the parties were required to negotiate toward a mutually agreeable 40-year lease. The contract also stated that if the parties could not agree on the lease, then the parties would enter into a 20-year management contract providing that DSI would operate the facility. Despite extensive negotiations, the parties failed to reach an agreement on the lease, and Kenford and DSI did not construct the stadium. Kenford and DSI sued Erie for breach of contract. During the trial, DSI presented extensive expert and economic evidence regarding expected profits from operating the stadium for 20 years. DSI’s witnesses used the Astrodome in Houston as a basis for comparison. After trial, the jury returned with a multimillion-dollar verdict for Kenford and DSI. Erie appealed, and the appellate division reduced the damages award by reversing the portion of the damages award to DSI related to lost profits over 20 years for operating the stadium. DSI appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Per curiam)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 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.