Peter Vivian Daniel

Name: Van Buren v. Digges — Opinion of the Court
Author: Peter Vivian Daniel

Van Buren v. Digges — Opinion of the Court

Summary

“Van Buren v. Digges — Opinion of the Court”, is a work by Peter Vivian Daniel. It explores elements such as defendant, plaintiff and contract.

Quotes from Van Buren v. Digges — Opinion of the Court (Peter Vivian Daniel)

Peter Vivian Daniel, Van Buren v. Digges — Opinion of the Court

“ The clause of the contract providing for the forfeiture of ten per centum on the amount of the contract price, upon a failure to complete the work by a given day, cannot properly be regarded as an agreement or settlement of liquidated damages. The term forfeiture imports a penalty; it has no necessary or natural connection with the measure or degree of injury which may result from a breach of contract, or from an imperfect performance. It implies an absolute infliction, regardless of the nature and extent of the causes by which it is superinduced. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Peter Vivian Daniel, Van Buren v. Digges — Opinion of the Court

“ That in an action to recover the stipulated price on a special contract (to build a house, where the house, when built, has been accepted) , evidence cannot be offered to show a partial failure to perform the same, according to its terms. Neither can money paid to a stranger to complete the same or on account of said failure, nor any evidence of damages suffered by reason of such failure, be offered to reduce the said price, even though the same be specially pleaded, or notice by way of setoff, with a particular account thereof, be filed in the case. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Peter Vivian Daniel, Van Buren v. Digges — Opinion of the Court

“ In a defence like that attempted by the defendant in the Circuit Court, upon the essential justice and fairness of the acts of the parties, a positive immutable penalty could hardly be applied as a fair test of their merits.
In the third exception by the defendant, it is stated that the plaintiff, having given evidence to show that the defendant, whilst the house in question was being built, made a contract for an alteration in the style and finish of the plastering of the house, with a third person, and not with the plaintiff ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Peter Vivian Daniel, Van Buren v. Digges — Opinion of the Court

“ If the stove in question is altogether incompetent, and unfit for the purpose, and either from that, or from the situation in which it is placed, does not at all answer the end for which it was intended, then the defendant is not bound to pay. If it is perfect, and the fault lies in management at the chapel, then the plaintiffs will be entitled to recover the whole price. But there is another view of the case. The apparatus may be in the main substantial, but not quite so complete as it might be according to the contract ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Peter Vivian Daniel, Van Buren v. Digges — Opinion of the Court

“ For the flooring throughout, the best quality narrow North Carolina yellow heart pine, tongued, grooved, and secret nailed. Roofs to be slated in the best manner. Spouting to be thoroughly arranged, in the least conspicuous manner, so as to carry off all the water that falls on roofs of the main building, office, and back buildings. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Peter Vivian Daniel, Van Buren v. Digges — Opinion of the Court

“ After giving the dimensions of the house to be built, the contractproceeds with these stipulations concerning the work to be done, and the compensation to be paid therefor:--
'House to be built of two stories, with attic chambers above, of first-rate materials throughout, including office and back buildings, and in the best and most modern style of workmanship, and to be entirely finished and fit for occupation on or before the 15th of December, 1844.
'For the brick-work throughout, the best hard-burned red brick are to be employed, with sharp river sand and best lime. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Peter Vivian Daniel, Van Buren v. Digges — Opinion of the Court

“ H. MAY, Defendant's Attorney.
Wm. H. Digges to W. H. Van Buren, Dr., to amounts paid.
Nov. 5. Charles E. Craig, for painting and pencilling front of house, $40.
Dec. 23. R. J. & W. Brown for cornicing parlors and vestibule, and centre-pieces with hooks, &c. 75. ”

Peter Vivian Daniel

Summary

Quotes from Van Buren v. Digges — Opinion of the Court (Peter Vivian Daniel)

Common terms

Similar works

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature