Kirkland v. Archbold
Ohio Court of Appeals, Cuyahoga County
113 N.E.2d 496 (1953)
- Written by Christine Hilgeman, JD
Facts
Kirkland (plaintiff) entered into a contract with Archbold (defendant) to make repairs to Archbold’s home. Under the agreement, Archbold agreed to pay $1,000 after completion of 10 days’ work, another $1,000 after 20 days’ work, another $1,000 after 30 days’ work, $1,000 upon completion and $2,000 30 days after completion, for a total payment of $6,000. After two month’s work was completed, Kirkland had only been paid $800. At that point, Kirkland had rendered services reasonably valued at $2,895 but was prevented from proceeding by Archbold because Kirkland failed to strictly comply with the contract specifications for the materials to be used on the exterior walls. Kirkland brought an action against Archbold to collect the difference between the $800 payment and the value of the services rendered. The trial court found the $800 payment to be a concession by Archbold that the first payment under the contract had been earned and awarded Kirkland $200. The court denied recovery of the remaining payments. Treating the contract as severable, the court found that Kirkland subsequently breached the contract by using incorrect materials on the exterior walls. Thus, Archbold was entitled to stop Kirkland from continuing the work and was not required to make further payments to Kirkland due to the breach. Kirkland appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Skeel, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 811,000 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.
