George E. Westberg Company, Inc. v. The Quaker Oats Company and Burry Biscuit Corporation

Second Circuit

George E. Westberg Company, Inc. v. The Quaker Oats Company and Burry Biscuit Corporation

311 F.2d 25, 1962 U.S. App. LEXIS 3500

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedNovember 27, 1962

Docket27708_1

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 311 F.2d 25 (George E. Westberg Company, Inc. v. The Quaker Oats Company and Burry Biscuit Corporation) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

George E. Westberg Company, Inc. v. The Quaker Oats Company and Burry Biscuit Corporation, 311 F.2d 25, 1962 U.S. App. LEXIS 3500 (2d Cir. 1962).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff appeals from a summary judgment dismissing its claim for compensation, allegedly due upon an implied contract, for services allegedly rendered to the defendant Burry Biscuit Corporation. Plaintiff claims to have provided, at Burry’s request, the opportunity for a sale of Burry’s business and assets to the defendant The Quaker Oats Company. Although The Quaker Oats Company is joined as a party defendant, plaintiff concedes upon this appeal that any claim it has against Quaker is dependent upon its primary claims against Burry, and must be dismissed if the claims against Burry fail.

All of the contacts between the parties were contained in a series of letters, set forth in the affidavits accompanying defendants’ motion for summary judgment. The plaintiff submitted no counter-affidavits. From the affidavits and the letters submitted by the defendants, the accuracy, authenticity, and completeness of which are not denied, the court below properly found no triable issue of fact from which a jury could properly find Burry obligated to pay for the services which the plaintiff purported to render. Moreover, in view of the lapse of two and a half years between the plaintiff’s most significant letter (which did nothing more than suggest The Quaker Oats Company as a potential buyer) and the consummation of negotiations between Burry and The Quaker Oats Company, there was no showing that the plaintiff rendered any compensable services. Such being the fact it would appear that New York would deny recovery to the plaintiff. See Sibball v. Bethlehem Iron Co., 83 N.Y. 378 (1881). See also Veatch v. Standard Oil Co., 49 F.Supp. 45 (S.D. N.Y.1940), aff’d on opinion below, 13.4 F.2d 173 (2 Cir. 1943).

The judgment of the court below is affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff appeals from a summary judgment dismissing its claim for compensation, allegedly due upon an implied contract, for services allegedly rendered to the defendant Burry Biscuit Corporation. Plaintiff claims to have provided, at Burry’s request, the opportunity for a sale of Burry’s business and assets to the defendant The Quaker Oats Company. Although The Quaker Oats Company is joined as a party defendant, plaintiff concedes upon this appeal that any claim it has against Quaker is dependent upon its primary claims against Burry, and must be dismissed if the claims against Burry fail.

All of the contacts between the parties were contained in a series of letters, set forth in the affidavits accompanying defendants’ motion for summary judgment. The plaintiff submitted no counter-affidavits. From the affidavits and the letters submitted by the defendants, the accuracy, authenticity, and completeness of which are not denied, the court below properly found no triable issue of fact from which a jury could properly find Burry obligated to pay for the services which the plaintiff purported to render. Moreover, in view of the lapse of two and a half years between the plaintiff’s most significant letter (which did nothing more than suggest The Quaker Oats Company as a potential buyer) and the consummation of negotiations between Burry and The Quaker Oats Company, there was no showing that the plaintiff rendered any compensable services. Such being the fact it would appear that New York would deny recovery to the plaintiff. See Sibball v. Bethlehem Iron Co., 83 N.Y. 378 (1881). See also Veatch v. Standard Oil Co., 49 F.Supp. 45 (S.D. N.Y.1940), aff’d on opinion below, 13.4 F.2d 173 (2 Cir. 1943).

The judgment of the court below is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

311 F.2d 25, 1962 U.S. App. LEXIS 3500, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/george-e-westberg-company-inc-v-the-quaker-oats-company-and-burry-ca2-1962.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack