Another fascinating case that illustrates a lot of principles of contract law and economics, as well as a case called Jacobs and Young versus Kent. So it's a case by the legendary judge Benjamin Cardozo when he was on the Court of Appeals in New York, which is the name for the highest court in New York. This involved a case where we had this very wealthy, New York lawyer named Kent, who contracted with the company to build himself and his wife, a luxurious vacation home out in Long Island, in the beginning of the 20th century. Well, it turns out that Kent was notoriously known as one of the cheapest guys in all of New York. and he fought with the building company throughout the whole process of constructing this building. The other thing that's interesting about it is this took place in the nineteen teens, which is of course when World War I was going on. So the dispute was over a certain brand of piping that was supposed to go in the house, something called Reading pipe. What happened is, after. Kent moved into the house, they were still arguing over certain work that needed to be done. And all of a sudden Kent discovered, he claims, that a large amount of the pipe in the house was of the same quality of Reading pipe, but wasn't actually the Reading pipe brand. The dissent in the case said that that was a breach of the contract that the contract called for Reading pipe, Cardozo writing for the majority said, well, I think that what they really meant was the quality of Reading pipe. Now what's the underlying logic here. Well, nobody seriously thinks that Kent really cared about the type of pipe in the house. in demanding that the pipe be torn out and replaced with, Reading pipe, what was he trying to do? He was really just trying to get, I think, the builder to knock down the price and give him a rebate after the fact, because it'd be very expensive to tear out the pipe, and replace it with, the pipe of the exact same quality. Now, Cardozo could be wrong about that. It's consistent with most people's intuition that nobody cares about the pipe in their house. Do you know what kind of pipe is in your house? The answer is almost nobody knows. And so what is Cardoza doing in this case? He's trying to prevent this sort of opportunistic behavior after the fact of basically threatening to have this work be ruined, and repaired for no benefit, which isn't really likely to happen instead what's likely to happen is that, Kent is basically trying to get Jacobs and Young to write him a check, to get the house for less than he originally agreed to pay for it. That's the kind of opportunistic behavior that contract law is trying to deter.