## Facts

- W.B. engaged Watkins, a builder, to construct a mill to be completed by Christmas.
- Watkins did not complete the mill by the agreed time.
- W.B. sought 10 marks in damages, suing in trespass on the case for the loss caused by noncompletion.
- The pleading did not state the contract price or other specific payment term.
- Watkins challenged the sufficiency of the declaration, arguing the claim should lie, if at all, in covenant rather than trespass on the case.
- Watkins also asserted that W.B. later told him the mill was no longer wanted and to stop work; W.B. denied that assertion, and a factual dispute was joined.

## Issues

1. Whether a plaintiff may sue in trespass on the case for a builder’s failure to complete work by an agreed date when the claim arises from an informal undertaking rather than a deed-based covenant.
2. Whether omission of the contract price renders the declaration insufficient in an action on the case.
3. Whether the line between nonfeasance (nonperformance) and misfeasance (bad performance causing harm) limits when tort-based case will lie for conduct connected to a contract.

## Decision

- The court treated the action on the case as available notwithstanding that the asserted wrong arose from a contractual undertaking to build the mill.
- The declaration was not rejected as insufficient solely because it failed to state a specific contract price; payment could be inferred from the nature of the undertaking.
- The matter proceeded on the joined factual issue whether W.B. countermanded the work by telling Watkins the mill was no longer wanted.

## Legal Principles

- An action on the case may lie for harm connected to a contractual undertaking; contract and tort forms of action are not mutually exclusive.
- Some judges distinguished nonfeasance from misfeasance, favoring covenant for pure nonperformance and case for wrongful or negligent performance causing damage.
- Other judges accepted that serious loss resulting from failure to perform an undertaken task can support an action on the case even where the breach is characterized as nonfeasance.
- In pleading an action on the case arising from a service undertaking, the court may infer a promise of payment and does not require the plaintiff to plead a precise price term to survive an early challenge.

## Conclusion

Watkins’ Case is an early authority that a contractual undertaking can supply the setting for tort liability in an action on the case, that failure to plead a specific price does not necessarily defeat such a claim, and that disputes over nonfeasance versus misfeasance were central to defining when tort remedies could be used for harm arising from failed performance.


Watkins’ Case, Y.B. 3 Hen. 6, f. 36, Hil. pl. 33 (C.P. 1425)