## Facts

- Young contracted with the City of Chicopee to repair a wooden bridge by replacing decayed wood with sound material, with compensation based on the amount of new material installed into the bridge.
- To reduce interference with public travel, the contract required Young not to begin work until at least one-half of the needed materials were on site.
- Young delivered lumber to the bridge and nearby banks and began performance, incorporating some materials into the bridge.
- An accidental fire, without fault of either party, destroyed the bridge and also destroyed lumber on site that had not yet been incorporated into the structure.
- Young sued to recover (1) the value of labor and materials incorporated into the bridge before the fire and (2) the value of the unused lumber destroyed on site.
- The City conceded liability for labor and materials incorporated into the bridge but denied liability for the unused lumber; the jury awarded Young damages that included the unused materials.
- The City appealed, challenging the award for the unused lumber.

## Issues

1. When a repair contract becomes impossible because the specific structure is destroyed without either party’s fault, must the owner pay only for work and materials incorporated before destruction, or also for the contractor’s unused on-site materials required by the contract?

## Decision

- The court held that destruction of the bridge without fault discharged further performance under the repair contract.
- The City was liable to compensate Young for labor performed and materials actually incorporated into the bridge before the fire.
- The City was not liable for the value of unused lumber that had been delivered to the site but not yet incorporated into the bridge.
- The judgment was limited to recovery for the value of work done and materials incorporated prior to destruction.

## Legal Principles

- A contract to repair or work upon a specific existing structure contains an implied assumption that the structure will continue to exist; accidental destruction without fault discharges executory duties.
- After discharge for impossibility, the performing party may recover for the value of part performance that conferred a benefit (labor and materials incorporated into the owner’s property).
- Title and risk of loss for materials remain with the contractor until the materials are incorporated into the structure, absent clear agreement to the contrary.
- A contractual requirement to stockpile materials on site to expedite performance does not, by itself, transfer ownership or shift the risk of accidental loss to the owner.
- The contractor’s ability to substitute materials before incorporation supports treating unused materials as the contractor’s property and risk.

## Conclusion

The court treated accidental destruction of the bridge as discharging future contractual duties, required the City to pay for the repair work and materials that became part of the bridge, and placed the loss of unused on-site lumber on the contractor because it remained the contractor’s property until incorporation.


Young v. City of Chicopee, 186 Mass. 518, 72 N.E. 63 (1904)