Cohen v. Cerame

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Cohen v. Cerame

275 A.D.2d 904

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

DecidedJune 14, 1949

StatusPublished

This text of 275 A.D.2d 904 (Cohen v. Cerame) 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

Cohen v. Cerame, 275 A.D.2d 904 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1949).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

There was no meeting of the minds between the parties as to what was to be sold. In its circular offer defendant set forth that it had for sale “Haval Brass Rod.” Plaintiffs’ order was for a quality known as “free cutting brass rod ”, a type of brass which was not included in defendant’s offer of sale. Moreover, plaintiffs wanted immediate delivery whereas defendant only agreed to deliver when and if it received the merchandise from the War Assets Administration. All the correspondence in the case shows that the parties were not negotiating for the same thing or upon the same terms.

When defendant received plaintiffs’ order to buy he wrote a letter setting forth that its offer to deliver was conditioned upon receipt of the materials from the War Assets Administration. Plaintiffs knew that the material ordered was coming from the War Assets Administration; that often the latter did not ship materials supposedly sold to a bidder; and that the merchandise here could not be delivered to them unless and until defendant received it. Concededly, the brass rod was never received by defendant from the War Assets Administration. Accordingly, defendant was under no obligation to deliver any of the material ordered. (Shields v. Pettie, 4 N. Y. 122; Kirsch & Co. v. Benyunes, 105 Misc. 648, opinion by Lehman, J., affd. 191 App. Div. 904.)

The judgment should be reversed, with costs to the appellant, and the complaint dismissed.

Dore, J. P., Cohn, Van Voorhis and Shientag, JJ., concur; Callahan, J., concurs on the ground that there was no meeting of the minds as to delivery.

Judgment reversed, with costs to the appellant, and the complaint dismissed. Settle order on notice.

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

Per Curiam.

There was no meeting of the minds between the parties as to what was to be sold. In its circular offer defendant set forth that it had for sale “Haval Brass Rod.” Plaintiffs’ order was for a quality known as “free cutting brass rod ”, a type of brass which was not included in defendant’s offer of sale. Moreover, plaintiffs wanted immediate delivery whereas defendant only agreed to deliver when and if it received the merchandise from the War Assets Administration. All the correspondence in the case shows that the parties were not negotiating for the same thing or upon the same terms.

When defendant received plaintiffs’ order to buy he wrote a letter setting forth that its offer to deliver was conditioned upon receipt of the materials from the War Assets Administration. Plaintiffs knew that the material ordered was coming from the War Assets Administration; that often the latter did not ship materials supposedly sold to a bidder; and that the merchandise here could not be delivered to them unless and until defendant received it. Concededly, the brass rod was never received by defendant from the War Assets Administration. Accordingly, defendant was under no obligation to deliver any of the material ordered. (Shields v. Pettie, 4 N. Y. 122; Kirsch & Co. v. Benyunes, 105 Misc. 648, opinion by Lehman, J., affd. 191 App. Div. 904.)

The judgment should be reversed, with costs to the appellant, and the complaint dismissed.

Dore, J. P., Cohn, Van Voorhis and Shientag, JJ., concur; Callahan, J., concurs on the ground that there was no meeting of the minds as to delivery.

Judgment reversed, with costs to the appellant, and the complaint dismissed. Settle order on notice.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

275 A.D.2d 904, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cohen-v-cerame-nyappdiv-1949.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack