Frank Export-Import Corp. v. Elof Hansson, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Frank Export-Import Corp. v. Elof Hansson, Inc.

2 A.D.2d 877, 156 N.Y.S.2d 231, 1956 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4002

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

DecidedNovember 7, 1956

StatusPublished

This text of 2 A.D.2d 877 (Frank Export-Import Corp. v. Elof Hansson, 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

Frank Export-Import Corp. v. Elof Hansson, Inc., 2 A.D.2d 877, 156 N.Y.S.2d 231, 1956 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4002 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1956).

Pincite

Opinion

The amended complaint alleges that plaintiff was to procure a customer for the defendant who was ready, able and willing to purchase newsprint at specified prices f.o.b. Bremen and/or Antwerp. The allegations of performance on plaintiff’s part are that he procured a pm’chaser at the requested prices, nothing being alleged as to the f.o.b. feature. Plaintiff asserts that paragraph 11 of the complaint sufficiently alleges the inclusion of that term in the undertaking the purchaser was ready, able and willing to assume. But the reference in that paragraph to the “ terms aforesaid ” is equivocal, and it is not clear that the allegation encompasses more than the terms set forth in paragraph 8 of the complaint, which makes no reference to the f.o.b. provision. The complaint would not be sufficient unless it alleged that the f.o.b. term was included in the undertaking of the purchaser. Order unanimously reversed, with $20 costs and disbursements to the appellant, the motion granted and the complaint dismissed with leave to the plaintiff to replead. Concur — Peek, P. J., Breitel, Cox, Frank and Bastow, JJ.

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

The amended complaint alleges that plaintiff was to procure a customer for the defendant who was ready, able and willing to purchase newsprint at specified prices f.o.b. Bremen and/or Antwerp. The allegations of performance on plaintiff’s part are that he procured a pm’chaser at the requested prices, nothing being alleged as to the f.o.b. feature. Plaintiff asserts that paragraph 11 of the complaint sufficiently alleges the inclusion of that term in the undertaking the purchaser was ready, able and willing to assume. But the reference in that paragraph to the “ terms aforesaid ” is equivocal, and it is not clear that the allegation encompasses more than the terms set forth in paragraph 8 of the complaint, which makes no reference to the f.o.b. provision. The complaint would not be sufficient unless it alleged that the f.o.b. term was included in the undertaking of the purchaser. Order unanimously reversed, with $20 costs and disbursements to the appellant, the motion granted and the complaint dismissed with leave to the plaintiff to replead. Concur — Peek, P. J., Breitel, Cox, Frank and Bastow, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2 A.D.2d 877, 156 N.Y.S.2d 231, 1956 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4002, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/frank-export-import-corp-v-elof-hansson-inc-nyappdiv-1956.