Kemi, Inc. v. Berlitz International, Inc.

228 A.D.2d 281, 644 N.Y.2d 27, 644 N.Y.S.2d 27, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6722
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided June 13, 1996·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

The disputed provisions in Articles III and IV of the Asset Purchase Agreement do not specify exclusive remedies for breach of warranties made in Article VII thereof. Moreover, a remedy specified for breach of an individual contract term is not necessarily a remedy for breach of other terms in the contract.

The internal memorandum from defendant, produced by counterclaim defendants on their motion, does not show that the parties contemplated that the matter was settled and that there would be no further writings required (cf., Condo v Mulcahy, 88 AD2d 497, 500). We have considered counterclaim defendants’ remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Wallach, Nardelli and Tom, JJ.

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

Kemi, Inc. v. Berlitz International, Inc., 228 A.D.2d 281, 644 N.Y.2d 27, 644 N.Y.S.2d 27, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6722 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

228 A.D.2d 281 (Kemi, Inc. v. Berlitz International, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related