Dexter Bishop Co. v. B. Redmond & Son, Inc.

58 A.D.2d 755, 396 N.Y.S.2d 652, 22 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. (West) 406, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12905
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJuly 7, 1977
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 58 A.D.2d 755 (Dexter Bishop Co. v. B. Redmond & Son, Inc.) 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
Dexter Bishop Co. v. B. Redmond & Son, Inc., 58 A.D.2d 755, 396 N.Y.S.2d 652, 22 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. (West) 406, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12905 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1977).

Opinion

Judgment of the Supreme Court, Bronx County, entered August 14, 1975, which decreed that defendant specifically perform its obligation to sell and deliver to plaintiff two new model "Red-dies” machines, in accordance with an agreement had between the parties, and which denied damages to plaintiff, unanimously affirmed, without costs and without disbursements. Defendant appeals from so much of the order and judgment as granted specific performance to plaintiff. Plaintiff cross-appeals from that portion of the same order and judgment denying damages. There appears to be no question that the two new "Reddies” machines, manufactured by defendant to process butter and margarine into table service pats are "unique” and come within the description of the types of machines referred to in paragraph 4.2 (a) of the contract dated February 24, 1964 between the parties. We agree with the trial court’s view of the evidence that defendant breached the contract in failing to comply with plaintiff’s order of October 24, 1969 for these two machines. The contract provided, inter alia: "4.2 Companies shall sell to Dexter, at Companies’ manufacturing cost, as defined in paragraph 2.1(c), in the event that Dexter shall elect to purchase same for its own use: (a) Any and all types of machines hereafter developed and manufactured for the trade and domes[756]*756tically sold or rented by Companies, provided, however, that the operation of paragraph 4.2(a) does not jeopardize the business of Companies.

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

Related

Farrell Family Ventures, LLC v. Sekas & Associates LLC
863 F. Supp. 2d 324 (S.D. New York, 2012)
Bander v. Grossman
161 Misc. 2d 119 (New York Supreme Court, 1994)
King Aircraft Sales, Inc. v. Lane
846 P.2d 550 (Court of Appeals of Washington, 1993)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
58 A.D.2d 755, 396 N.Y.S.2d 652, 22 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. (West) 406, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12905, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dexter-bishop-co-v-b-redmond-son-inc-nyappdiv-1977.