Babbitt v. Wides Motor Sales Corp.

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Babbitt v. Wides Motor Sales Corp.

17 Misc. 2d 889, 192 N.Y.S.2d 21, 1959 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3954

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedApril 9, 1959

StatusPublished

This text of 17 Misc. 2d 889 (Babbitt v. Wides Motor Sales Corp.) 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

Babbitt v. Wides Motor Sales Corp., 17 Misc. 2d 889, 192 N.Y.S.2d 21, 1959 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3954 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1959).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

While appellant was not entitled to recover her deposit of $100 after she breached her agreement to accept the automobile she contracted to purchase, respondent failed to prove the proper measure of damages for such breach. The measure of damages for a purchaser’s failure to accept a car is the difference between the contract price and the market value at the time and place of delivery, in the absence of proof that there was not a constant and ready market for the class of car involved. (Personal Property Law, § 145; A. Lenoble, Inc. v. Senif, 252 App. Div. 533; Genovese v. A. Lenoble, Inc., 148 Misc. 548, revd. on other ground 154 Misc. 91; Lowas Garage Co. v. Scheer, 199 N. Y. S. 748.)

The judgment, insofar as it dismisses the complaint, should be affirmed. Judgment upon the counterclaim reversed upon the law and the facts and the counterclaim dismissed without prejudice. No costs to either party on this appeal.

Concur — Pette, Di Giovanna and Benjamin, JJ.

Judgment affirmed, etc.

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

Per Curiam.

While appellant was not entitled to recover her deposit of $100 after she breached her agreement to accept the automobile she contracted to purchase, respondent failed to prove the proper measure of damages for such breach. The measure of damages for a purchaser’s failure to accept a car is the difference between the contract price and the market value at the time and place of delivery, in the absence of proof that there was not a constant and ready market for the class of car involved. (Personal Property Law, § 145; A. Lenoble, Inc. v. Senif, 252 App. Div. 533; Genovese v. A. Lenoble, Inc., 148 Misc. 548, revd. on other ground 154 Misc. 91; Lowas Garage Co. v. Scheer, 199 N. Y. S. 748.)

The judgment, insofar as it dismisses the complaint, should be affirmed. Judgment upon the counterclaim reversed upon the law and the facts and the counterclaim dismissed without prejudice. No costs to either party on this appeal.

Concur — Pette, Di Giovanna and Benjamin, JJ.

Judgment affirmed, etc.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

17 Misc. 2d 889, 192 N.Y.S.2d 21, 1959 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3954, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/babbitt-v-wides-motor-sales-corp-nyappterm-1959.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack