Jonathan Cass, Ltd. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Jonathan Cass, Ltd. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

216 A.D.2d 31, 627 N.Y.S.2d 643, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6034

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

DecidedJune 6, 1995

StatusPublished

This text of 216 A.D.2d 31 (Jonathan Cass, Ltd. v. Wal-Mart Stores, 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

Jonathan Cass, Ltd. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 216 A.D.2d 31, 627 N.Y.S.2d 643, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6034 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Beatrice Shainswit, J.), entered on or about November 14, 1994, which denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The IAS Court properly determined that summary judgment was precluded by triable issues of fact, including issues as to the parties’ credibility and intent raised by their conflicting affidavits, with respect to the conformity of the goods sold, the timeliness of the delivery, and the disputed cancellation by the defendant of the parties’ contracts.

A triable issue has been raised as to when the purchase order was given and its applicability, if any, to these transac[32]*32tions. A further triable issue pertains to whether the cancellation provision in the defendant’s purchase order form, which granted defendant the right to unilaterally and arbitrarily cancel its purchase orders, at any stage of the production prior to shipment, regardless of the expense incurred by its vendors, is, in view of the significant disparity and inequality in bargaining power between the parties, unconscionable, and therefore, unenforceable (see, Gillman v Chase Manhattan Bank, 73 NY2d 1, 10-11, 12). Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Rubin, Ross, Nardelli and Mazzarelli, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Beatrice Shainswit, J.), entered on or about November 14, 1994, which denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The IAS Court properly determined that summary judgment was precluded by triable issues of fact, including issues as to the parties’ credibility and intent raised by their conflicting affidavits, with respect to the conformity of the goods sold, the timeliness of the delivery, and the disputed cancellation by the defendant of the parties’ contracts.

A triable issue has been raised as to when the purchase order was given and its applicability, if any, to these transac[32]*32tions. A further triable issue pertains to whether the cancellation provision in the defendant’s purchase order form, which granted defendant the right to unilaterally and arbitrarily cancel its purchase orders, at any stage of the production prior to shipment, regardless of the expense incurred by its vendors, is, in view of the significant disparity and inequality in bargaining power between the parties, unconscionable, and therefore, unenforceable (see, Gillman v Chase Manhattan Bank, 73 NY2d 1, 10-11, 12). Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Rubin, Ross, Nardelli and Mazzarelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

216 A.D.2d 31, 627 N.Y.S.2d 643, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6034, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jonathan-cass-ltd-v-wal-mart-stores-inc-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack