Kleartone Transparent Products Co. v. Hercules, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Kleartone Transparent Products Co. v. Hercules, Inc.

49 A.D.2d 909, 373 N.Y.S.2d 623, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11155

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

DecidedOctober 14, 1975

StatusPublished

This text of 49 A.D.2d 909 (Kleartone Transparent Products Co. v. Hercules, 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

Kleartone Transparent Products Co. v. Hercules, Inc., 49 A.D.2d 909, 373 N.Y.S.2d 623, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11155 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

In two consolidated actions, Action No. 1 by a buyer to recover the cost of allegedly defective goods returned to the seller and for damages and Action No. 2 by the seller to recover the price of goods sold and upon accounts stated, the appeal is by the buyer from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated September 5, 1974 and made after a nonjury trial, which, inter alia, dismissed the buyer’s first cause of action (to recover the cost of the returned goods) for failure of proof. Judgment affirmed, with costs. The buyer sued to recover the cost of goods it allegedly returned to the seller because the goods did not meet the buyer’s customer’s needs. However, there was no credible evidence offered to support the buyer’s assertion that it shipped more of these goods to the seller than the seller received and that the difference must have been lost in transit. Moreover, to the extent that the buyer’s case rested upon a claim that the goods were defective because they were not suitable for its customer’s needs, there is no proof that the seller knew, or should have known, of the use to which its product would be [910]*910put by the buyer’s customer. Nor was there any evidence of any representation by the seller which induced the buyer to purchase the goods for a use for which they were unsuited. Therefore, the seller was obligated to the buyer only by virtue of, and in accordance with, the return products authorization which was executed when the seller learned of the buyer’s customer’s problem. We make no determination with regard to the seller’s assertion in its brief that the trial court erred in partially sustaining the buyer’s second cause of action. The seller did not appeal from the judgment. Rabin, Acting P. J., Cohalan, Margett, Brennan and Shapiro, JJ., concur.

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

In two consolidated actions, Action No. 1 by a buyer to recover the cost of allegedly defective goods returned to the seller and for damages and Action No. 2 by the seller to recover the price of goods sold and upon accounts stated, the appeal is by the buyer from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated September 5, 1974 and made after a nonjury trial, which, inter alia, dismissed the buyer’s first cause of action (to recover the cost of the returned goods) for failure of proof. Judgment affirmed, with costs. The buyer sued to recover the cost of goods it allegedly returned to the seller because the goods did not meet the buyer’s customer’s needs. However, there was no credible evidence offered to support the buyer’s assertion that it shipped more of these goods to the seller than the seller received and that the difference must have been lost in transit. Moreover, to the extent that the buyer’s case rested upon a claim that the goods were defective because they were not suitable for its customer’s needs, there is no proof that the seller knew, or should have known, of the use to which its product would be [910]*910put by the buyer’s customer. Nor was there any evidence of any representation by the seller which induced the buyer to purchase the goods for a use for which they were unsuited. Therefore, the seller was obligated to the buyer only by virtue of, and in accordance with, the return products authorization which was executed when the seller learned of the buyer’s customer’s problem. We make no determination with regard to the seller’s assertion in its brief that the trial court erred in partially sustaining the buyer’s second cause of action. The seller did not appeal from the judgment. Rabin, Acting P. J., Cohalan, Margett, Brennan and Shapiro, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

49 A.D.2d 909, 373 N.Y.S.2d 623, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11155, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kleartone-transparent-products-co-v-hercules-inc-nyappdiv-1975.