Legal Opinion

Cramer v. Esswein

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Decided March 18, 1927PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Per curiam

The evidence shows that plaintiff did not substantially perform his contract. Although the contract required that he install eight radiators, he installed only seven, leaving the bathroom without any provision for heat. He also, contrary to the agreement, installed a second-hand bathtub and wash basin; and he willfully removed the doors and other fixtures from the furnace. The doctrine of substantial performance has no application where there is an intentional, deliberate and willful departure from the contract. (Bullinger v. Interboro Brewing Co., Inc., 194 App. Div. 205.) “ Substantial…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Gompert v. HealyAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1912
  2. Bullinger v. Interboro Brewing Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1920

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Bank of New York Mellon Trust Co. v. Morgan Stanley Mortgage Capital, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2016
  2. Ferris v. MannSupreme Court of Rhode Island · 1965
  3. Ruckle & Guarino, Inc. v. HanganAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2008
  4. Bank of New York Mellon Trust Co. v. Morgan Stanley Mortgage Capital, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2016

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API