Caseflicks

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court • 1912

Homer v. Shaw

212 Mass. 113 | 98 N.E. 697 | 1912 Mass. LEXIS 881

Full access

Unlock the video and quiz

The written brief is free to read below. Subscribe to watch the video explainer and take the quiz.

Create an account Log in

Takeaway

In short, this case holds that an assignee cannot recover on an assigned contract when the original parties, facing genuine impossibility of performance, in good faith rescind it and replace it with a new agreement rather than merely altering it to evade the assignment.

Background

The plaintiff held an assignment of money that the defendant allegedly owed the assignor under a contract to transport, erect, and paint steelwork for a subway section. Under that original contract, the contract price was payable in monthly installments, but it would not become due unless the assignor fully performed. If the assignor abandoned the work before completion, he could not recover even for labor and materials already supplied.

After beginning performance, the assignor told the defendant that the plaintiff had failed to provide promised financing. Because his workers had not been paid and might leave, the assignor said he could not complete the job without immediate funds. The defendant thereafter supplied money to pay the workers, while the assignor remained in charge until the work was completed. The plaintiff claimed that the money received after this arrangement was earned under the original contract and therefore subject to the assignment.

The case was tried without a jury. The trial judge denied the plaintiff's requested findings and entered a general finding for the defendant. The plaintiff filed exceptions, arguing that the defendant remained liable under the assigned original contract.

Issues

Issue #1

Whether the defendant owed money under the assigned original construction contract after the assignor stated that he could not complete the work without additional financing.

Holding

No. If the assignor repudiated or abandoned the original contract before the first installment became payable, the defendant would not be indebted under that contract.

Reasoning

The original agreement made the defendant's obligation to pay contingent on the assignor's full performance. Although payment was scheduled in monthly installments, the entire contract price did not become due unless the work was completed as required.

The assignor's statement that he could not continue because his workers were unpaid could support a finding that he had repudiated or abandoned the contract before any installment became payable. Had the work then stopped, the assignor could not have recovered for the work and labor already furnished, and the plaintiff as assignee would likewise have had no claim against the defendant.

Issue #2

Whether the defendant and assignor could rescind the assigned contract and make a new funding-and-supervision agreement without the plaintiff's consent.

Holding

Yes, if changed circumstances made performance impossible and the parties in good faith canceled the original contract and substituted an independent agreement, rather than secretly altering the original contract to defeat the assignment.

Reasoning

An assignor and obligor may not modify an assigned contract in a way that prejudices the assignee, nor may they use a secret or fraudulent arrangement to strip the assignee of the assignment's benefit. Those limits protect the assignee's rights in the original obligation.

But those limits did not prevent the defendant and assignor from entering a genuinely new agreement after unforeseen circumstances made performance of the original contract impossible. The defendant could fund the workers' overdue and future wages, while the assignor could serve under a separate arrangement for a weekly supervisory salary.

This distinction mattered because a direct advance by the defendant under the old contract could have left the plaintiff's assignment with priority over the loan. A bona fide replacement agreement, however, did not merely advance funds against earnings under the assigned contract; it created a separate basis for completing the work.

Issue #3

Whether the trial judge's finding for the defendant was supported by the evidence.

Holding

Yes. The evidence permitted the judge to find that the parties rescinded the original contract and substituted a new agreement, leaving the plaintiff with no enforceable claim under the assignment.

Reasoning

Whether the parties mutually agreed, in response to the changed conditions, to cancel the first contract and replace it with an independent agreement was a factual question. The fact that the assignor remained in charge through completion did not require the conclusion that all later payments were earned under the original contract.

The judge's refusal of the plaintiff's requested findings, together with the general finding for the defendant, showed that he found a good-faith rescission and substitution of a new agreement. On that finding, the assigned original contract supplied no enforceable right to payment, so the plaintiff's requested rulings were properly refused and the exceptions were overruled.