Hiat Garage Corp. v. Sozzi

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hiat Garage Corp. v. Sozzi

234 A.D. 618

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

DecidedJuly 15, 1931

StatusPublished

This text of 234 A.D. 618 (Hiat Garage Corp. v. Sozzi) 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

Hiat Garage Corp. v. Sozzi, 234 A.D. 618 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1931).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment reversed upon the law and the facts, without costs, and action remitted as one at law to permit prosecution for damages for breach of contract. We are of opinion that the contract is not sufficiently definite and certain to warrant specific performance thereof, but that an action at law for damages for its breach may be based thereon. (Stanton v. Miller, 58 N. Y. 192, 200; Hopedale Electric Co. v. Electric Storage Battery Co., 132 App. Div. 348, 356; 65 A. L. R. 102.) [619]*619Kapper, Hagarty, Carswell and Davis, JJ., concur; Lazansky, P. J., concurs in the reversal but votes for a dismissal of the complaint, with the following memorandum: While the contract, general in its terms, might otherwise be an enforcible contract, the letter of October 11, 1929, indicates the parties had not agreed upon all the terms of the contract.

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

Judgment reversed upon the law and the facts, without costs, and action remitted as one at law to permit prosecution for damages for breach of contract. We are of opinion that the contract is not sufficiently definite and certain to warrant specific performance thereof, but that an action at law for damages for its breach may be based thereon. (Stanton v. Miller, 58 N. Y. 192, 200; Hopedale Electric Co. v. Electric Storage Battery Co., 132 App. Div. 348, 356; 65 A. L. R. 102.) [619]*619Kapper, Hagarty, Carswell and Davis, JJ., concur; Lazansky, P. J., concurs in the reversal but votes for a dismissal of the complaint, with the following memorandum: While the contract, general in its terms, might otherwise be an enforcible contract, the letter of October 11, 1929, indicates the parties had not agreed upon all the terms of the contract.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

234 A.D. 618, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hiat-garage-corp-v-sozzi-nyappdiv-1931.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack