Fox v. Cavalcade Fabrics, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Fox v. Cavalcade Fabrics, Inc.

280 A.D. 769, 113 N.Y.S.2d 474, 1952 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3653

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

DecidedJune 17, 1952

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 280 A.D. 769 (Fox v. Cavalcade Fabrics, 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

Fox v. Cavalcade Fabrics, Inc., 280 A.D. 769, 113 N.Y.S.2d 474, 1952 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3653 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1952).

Pincite

Opinion

Determination of the Appellate Term unanimously reversed, with costs and the judgment of the City Court dismissing the complaint reinstated. We think that the opinion of Mr. Justice Kane in the City Court properly analyzed the facts and concluded that there was no meeting of the minds essential to the formation of a binding contract, written or oral. In addition to the finding made that plaintiffs’ exhibits 2 and 3 did not coincide in an agreement it should be observed that plaintiffs’ exhibit 2 itself was a variance from the alleged oral agreement relied upon by the plaintiffs and deemed to have been made the previous day. Settle order on notice. Present — Peck, P. J., Cohn, Van Voorhis and Bergan, JJ.

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

Determination of the Appellate Term unanimously reversed, with costs and the judgment of the City Court dismissing the complaint reinstated. We think that the opinion of Mr. Justice Kane in the City Court properly analyzed the facts and concluded that there was no meeting of the minds essential to the formation of a binding contract, written or oral. In addition to the finding made that plaintiffs’ exhibits 2 and 3 did not coincide in an agreement it should be observed that plaintiffs’ exhibit 2 itself was a variance from the alleged oral agreement relied upon by the plaintiffs and deemed to have been made the previous day. Settle order on notice. Present — Peck, P. J., Cohn, Van Voorhis and Bergan, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

280 A.D. 769, 113 N.Y.S.2d 474, 1952 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3653, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fox-v-cavalcade-fabrics-inc-nyappdiv-1952.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack