Stark v. Parker

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts · 1824 · Contracts

Contractsentire contractcondition precedentdependent covenantspart performancebreach by employeeyearly servicestipulated sum

Facts

The plaintiff claimed compensation for services rendered under an agreement to serve the defendant for one year for a stipulated sum. According to the ruling under review, the plaintiff had voluntarily left the defendant's service before the year expired, without the defendant's fault, and against the defendant's consent. The trial judge instructed that the plaintiff could nevertheless recover a proportional share of the agreed compensation, less any damages the defendant suffered from the desertion. The case reached the high court solely on whether that legal instruction was correct.

Issue

When a person agrees under an entire contract to serve for a fixed term for a stipulated sum, but voluntarily abandons performance before completion without excuse and without the employer's fault or consent, may that person recover a proportional part of the contract price or on a quantum meruit for the services actually performed?

Rule

If a contract for service is entire as to both the term of service and the compensation, full performance by the laborer is a condition precedent to the employer's duty to pay. Therefore, a laborer who voluntarily and without legal excuse abandons the service before the agreed term ends cannot recover any part of the stipulated compensation and cannot renounce the special contract to recover on a quantum meruit, unless the contract terms were waived or nonperformance is otherwise legally excused.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Worcester, Maya Collins agreed to work as a live-in caretaker for Owen Barrett for one year in exchange for a single payment of $48,000. After nine months, Maya left to move closer to friends in Providence, despite Owen's objection and without any misconduct by Owen.

If Maya sues for nine months' worth of the agreed compensation, what is the strongest argument against her recovery?

Explanation. The majority held that where a worker agrees to serve for a fixed term for a single stipulated sum, and the contract is entire as to both service and compensation, full performance is a condition precedent to payment. A laborer who voluntarily leaves before the term ends, without excuse and without the employer's fault or consent, cannot recover a proportional part of the price.