Jacob & Youngs, Inc. v. Kent, 230 N.Y. 239, 129 N.E. 889 (1921). In Jacob & Youngs, the homeowner contracted for a house with Reading-brand pipes but received

Jacob & Youngs, Inc. v. Kent, 230 N.Y. 239, 129 N.E. 889 (1921). In Jacob & Youngs, the homeowner contracted for a house with Reading-brand pipes but received a house with pipes of equal quality from a different manufacturer. The homeowner argued that they had suffered a “damage” because the builder failed to deliver what was specified. However, the court ruled that the cost to completely replace the pipes (tearing down walls, rebuilding, etc.) was disproportionate to the actual harm suffered, as the non-conforming pipes were functionally identical. Instead of awarding the cost of replacement, the court awarded damages based on the difference in value, which was negligible. Applying this principle to your hypothetical: • If you contracted for ethically sourced wood but received non-ethically sourced wood, courts would first examine the actual damage caused by the substitution. • If the wood is of the same quality and functionality, courts might determine that the damages are limited to the difference in value (if any) between the ethically sourced wood and the non-ethically sourced wood, rather than the cost of rebuilding the house. While a lawsuit for false advertising could succeed, the remedy would likely not extend to the drastic measure of requiring a house rebuild unless the difference in the wood’s sourcing directly caused a significant, material harm (e.g., structural failure or a substantial decrease in value). The case emphasizes that remedies for breach of contract or misrepresentation are not always as sweeping as they might seem; they are often tempered by considerations of fairness and proportionality.