To access this feature, please Log In or Register for your Casebriefs Account.

Add to Library




Hochster v. De La Tour

Law Dictionary

Law Dictionary

Featuring Black's Law Dictionary 2nd Ed.
Font size

Contracts Keyed to Murphy

View this case and other resources at:
Bloomberg Law

Citation. 118 ER 922

Brief Fact Summary. Plaintiff, a currier, entered into a contract with Defendant to accompany Defendant on a trip that would begin June 1. Defendant changed his mind before June 1, and refused to compensate.

Synopsis of Rule of Law. If two parties enter into a contract to be performed at a designated time in the future, and one party refuses to perform the contract before the designated time the parties agreed to perform, the other party may sue before the contract was to be performed. That party need not wait until the time for performance has passed.

Facts. Defendant and Plaintiff entered into a contract for Plaintiff to accompany Defendant on a tour starting on June 1. Defendant contacted Plaintiff on May 11, stating that he had changed his mind. He refused to compensate Plaintiff. Plaintiff brought suit against Defendant on May 22. Plaintiff found a new job that would begin on July 1.

Issue. Was the lower court correct to find for the Plaintiff even thought the time that the contract was to be performed had not come?

Create New Group

Casebriefs is concerned with your security, please complete the following