A. Sulka & Co. v. Brandt

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

A. Sulka & Co. v. Brandt

154 Misc. 534, 277 N.Y.S. 421, 1935 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 964

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedFebruary 14, 1935

StatusPublished

This text of 154 Misc. 534 (A. Sulka & Co. v. Brandt) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

A. Sulka & Co. v. Brandt, 154 Misc. 534, 277 N.Y.S. 421, 1935 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 964 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1935).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Plaintiff sold certain goods to defendant in Paris, France, the purchase price being expressed in francs. It sued here and has recovered judgment in dollars for the value of the unpaid francs at the rate of exchange prevailing at the date of judgment. This is error. The judgment should have been based on the rate of exchange prevailing as of the date of the breach of the contract, in the absence of special circumstances showing such rule to be inappropriate. (Kantor v. Aristo Hosiery Co., Inc., 222 App. Div. 502; affd., 248 N. Y. 630; Sokoloff v. National City Bank, 250 id. 69.) The mere circumstance that the fluctuation of exchange went against the plaintiff would not seem to justify a departure from this rule.

In addition, there appears to be an issue of fact as to whether the terms of sale permitted the defendant to pay in francs or dollars at his option.

Judgment and order reversed, with ten dollars costs to appellant to abide the event, and motion denied.

All concur; present, Hammer, Callahan and Shientag, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam.

Plaintiff sold certain goods to defendant in Paris, France, the purchase price being expressed in francs. It sued here and has recovered judgment in dollars for the value of the unpaid francs at the rate of exchange prevailing at the date of judgment. This is error. The judgment should have been based on the rate of exchange prevailing as of the date of the breach of the contract, in the absence of special circumstances showing such rule to be inappropriate. (Kantor v. Aristo Hosiery Co., Inc., 222 App. Div. 502; affd., 248 N. Y. 630; Sokoloff v. National City Bank, 250 id. 69.) The mere circumstance that the fluctuation of exchange went against the plaintiff would not seem to justify a departure from this rule.

In addition, there appears to be an issue of fact as to whether the terms of sale permitted the defendant to pay in francs or dollars at his option.

Judgment and order reversed, with ten dollars costs to appellant to abide the event, and motion denied.

All concur; present, Hammer, Callahan and Shientag, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

154 Misc. 534, 277 N.Y.S. 421, 1935 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 964, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/a-sulka-co-v-brandt-nyappterm-1935.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack