Kemi, Inc. v. Berlitz International, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

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

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

DecidedJune 13, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 228 A.D.2d 281 (Kemi, Inc. v. Berlitz International, 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

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).

Pincite

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

228 A.D.2d 281, 644 N.Y.2d 27, 644 N.Y.S.2d 27, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6722, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kemi-inc-v-berlitz-international-inc-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack