Cluster Gaslight Co. v. Baker

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Cluster Gaslight Co. v. Baker

90 N.Y.S. 1034

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedDecember 7, 1904

StatusPublished

This text of 90 N.Y.S. 1034 (Cluster Gaslight Co. v. Baker) 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

Cluster Gaslight Co. v. Baker, 90 N.Y.S. 1034 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1904).

Pincite

Opinion

BISCHOFF, J.

The agreement to pay for the lamp was in writing, was absolute in form, and left nothing to be added by paroi; hence the attempt to prove that the sale was conditional upon the buyer’s satisfaction was properly met by objection that the evidence offered was incompetent to alter the terms of the writing. So, too, the exclusion of evidence of a breach of warranty was not erroneous, the defense pleaded being insufficient, [1035]*1035Without disaffirmance by the defendant, and an offer to return the chattel, the breach of warranty was no answer to an action for the price. After acceptance, the breach of warranty would support rescission or a claim for damages, but here the defense pleaded^ involved neither. Thus there was nothing for the jury, the plaintiff’s right of recovery being established by the contract and the conceded delivery, and the direction of a verdict was proper.

Judgment affirmed, with costs. All concur.

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

BISCHOFF, J.

The agreement to pay for the lamp was in writing, was absolute in form, and left nothing to be added by paroi; hence the attempt to prove that the sale was conditional upon the buyer’s satisfaction was properly met by objection that the evidence offered was incompetent to alter the terms of the writing. So, too, the exclusion of evidence of a breach of warranty was not erroneous, the defense pleaded being insufficient, [1035]*1035Without disaffirmance by the defendant, and an offer to return the chattel, the breach of warranty was no answer to an action for the price. After acceptance, the breach of warranty would support rescission or a claim for damages, but here the defense pleaded^ involved neither. Thus there was nothing for the jury, the plaintiff’s right of recovery being established by the contract and the conceded delivery, and the direction of a verdict was proper.

Judgment affirmed, with costs. All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

90 N.Y.S. 1034, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cluster-gaslight-co-v-baker-nyappterm-1904.