Brief Fact Summary. The Plaintiff, Young (Plaintiff), sued to recover for the work done and materials supplied pursuant to a contract for the construction of a bridge. The bridge was destroyed by fire before completion and the Plaintiff claims entitlement to the cost of performance, plus the cost of materials not yet used, but destroyed.
Synopsis of Rule of Law. Where a structure is destroyed before the work on it is completed, the party owning the structure is liable for the work completed up to the destruction.
The principle seems to be, that when, under an implied condition of the contract, the parties are to be excused from performance if a certain event happens, and by reason of the happening of the event it becomes impossible to do that which was contemplated by the contract, there is an implied assumpsit for what has properly been done by either of them, the law dealing with it as done at the request of the other, and creating a liability to pay for it its value, to be determined by the price stipulated in the contract, or in some other way if the contract price cannot be made applicable.View Full Point of Law
Issue. Is the Defendant liable for the work performed by the Plaintiff up to the time of destruction of the bridge?
Held. Yes. The destruction of the bridge excused both parties from future performance, and the Defendant is liable to the Plaintiff for all work done up to the point of destruction. However, the Defendant cannot be liable for materials destroyed that were not yet attached to the structure. The principle behind such a rule is that the Plaintiff could have switched the material for other material up to the time it was actually made part of the bridge. Therefore, the Plaintiff may only recover for the work already performed.
Discussion. Part performance up to the point of destruction of the structure is all that is compen