Q: What happened in the case, Readsboro v. Hoosac Tunnel?
i. Town of Readsboro v. Hoosac Tunnel (1925). Δ RR Co. was only responsible for leaving the bridge in as good condition as when initially built because it no longer served its contractual purpose, i.e. supporting rail transport (p.3).
Since plain terms did not address the issue, the court looked to circumstances to determine what parties intended the duration of contract to be.
By looking to the circumstances, the Court determined the purpose of the contract and, having arrived at that purpose, used it as a standard by which to resolve the conflict.
Is purpose the same as intent?
It is hard to tell in this case whether Judge Hand was focusing more on parties’ intent or his own sense of justice. Criteria in this case are not totally clear.
Are you a lawyer? Or, do you just knoooow the answer?
We have located some similar legal questions and legal question categories. Check out these challenging questions that askquestions about Tort Cases and are similar to What happened in the case, Readsboro v. Hoosac Tunnel?. Also, we have included a list of some of our more popular legal question categories. These categories are based on what everyone is asking and answering.