Central Rigging & Contracting Corp. v. United States Hoffman Machinery Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Central Rigging & Contracting Corp. v. United States Hoffman Machinery Corp.

14 A.D.2d 854, 221 N.Y.S.2d 220, 1961 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7831

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedNovember 16, 1961

StatusPublished

This text of 14 A.D.2d 854 (Central Rigging & Contracting Corp. v. United States Hoffman Machinery Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Central Rigging & Contracting Corp. v. United States Hoffman Machinery Corp., 14 A.D.2d 854, 221 N.Y.S.2d 220, 1961 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7831 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1961).

Pincite

Opinion

A question of fact is presented whether, under all of the circumstances, the reference in the agreement to the weight of the equipment as given in the annexed drawing amounted to a positive and material representation by defendant (rather than merely a convenient quotation of the assertion by the equipment manufacturer to be taken at the bidder’s risk) of the true weight, upon which plaintiff had a right to rely (see Hollerbach v. United States, 233 U. S. 165). In this connection it may be relevant to determine whether plaintiff and defendant had equal opportunity to discover the actual weight of the equipment by independent investigation (Faber v. City of New York, 222 N. Y. 255, 260; United States v. Stage Co., 199 U. S. 414, 424). Such does not clearly appear in the record, and it may not be presumed that the weights were peculiarly within defendant’s knowledge. Concur — Breitel, J. P., McNally, Stevens, Eager and Steuer, JJ.

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

A question of fact is presented whether, under all of the circumstances, the reference in the agreement to the weight of the equipment as given in the annexed drawing amounted to a positive and material representation by defendant (rather than merely a convenient quotation of the assertion by the equipment manufacturer to be taken at the bidder’s risk) of the true weight, upon which plaintiff had a right to rely (see Hollerbach v. United States, 233 U. S. 165). In this connection it may be relevant to determine whether plaintiff and defendant had equal opportunity to discover the actual weight of the equipment by independent investigation (Faber v. City of New York, 222 N. Y. 255, 260; United States v. Stage Co., 199 U. S. 414, 424). Such does not clearly appear in the record, and it may not be presumed that the weights were peculiarly within defendant’s knowledge. Concur — Breitel, J. P., McNally, Stevens, Eager and Steuer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

14 A.D.2d 854, 221 N.Y.S.2d 220, 1961 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7831, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/central-rigging-contracting-corp-v-united-states-hoffman-machinery-nyappdiv-1961.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack