Browse by title

Jacob and Youngs v. Kent has long been a staple in Contracts casebooks. This chapter makes three contributions. First, it demonstrates that Cardozo broke no new ground. The law involving willfulness and substantial completion in building contracts had been around for half a century. The recognition of value of completion when the cost substantially exceeded the value was also well established. Second, it examines the record and concludes that Cardozo’s decision was justified. In particular it resolves two puzzles: (a) why did both the majority and dissent ignore the condition that the architect provide a certificate of completion; and (b) why didn’t Kent counterclaim for the full cost of completion? Finally, it considers how modern contract forms produced by the American Institute of Architects deal with the problem of deviations.

This project has asked contributors to undertake a critical review of the ideas of justice and injustice as they relate to Brexit. The book has asked whose justice is affected by Brexit? What justice is affected by Brexit? What does a just society look like? Whether Brexit is perceived as one of justice or injustice is related strongly to our perspective of the kind of British, European and global society we want and envisage. This project has also asked how can a ‘just’ Brexit be evaluated from an intellectual and methodological perspective, in order to assess our understanding of whether and how national and global governance affect the pursuance of a just society? This has been underpinned by the unique circumstance of Brexit, which concerns the situation of withdrawal from globalisation, or more specifically, an exit of a state from an international organisation. The diverse contributions in the book have been useful in enabling the book to make some observations about the ways in which the topic of Brexit is approached, and what this may expose about our use of frameworks, concepts and methodologies of (legal) research on Brexit.