Kridel v. Brukenfeld

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Kridel v. Brukenfeld

148 N.Y.S. 91

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedJune 18, 1914

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 148 N.Y.S. 91 (Kridel v. Brukenfeld) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Kridel v. Brukenfeld, 148 N.Y.S. 91 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1914).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff sued for the purchase price of two lots-of goods delivered to defendant. The defense consisted of the claim that these goods were part of one order, of which two other lots, not delivered, formed an intrinsic part. That was substantially the one issue litigated.

There was introduced in evidence by defendant an unsigned memorandum, as its Exhibit 1, made by plaintiffs’ salesman on a piece of paper, in which all four lots were enumerated. After having retired to deliberate, the jury asked, “Is defendant’s Exhibit 1 a contract in itself?” to which the court replied, “No.” Later the jury asked, “We wish to know whether this order slip, marked ‘Exhibit 1/ is a confirmation of an order, and is it legally binding on both parties concerned?” to which the court replied, “Yes.” To such reply, plaintiffs’" counsel excepted.

It is perfectly clear that Exhibit 1 was a mere private memorandum,, which was, as the court had correctly charged, not a contract, and equally it was not a confirmation 'of an order, and was not legally binding-on any one. The error related to a vital point ih the controversy, and was practically determinative of the issue.

Judgment reversed, and new trial granted, with costs to appellants-to abide the event.

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

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff sued for the purchase price of two lots-of goods delivered to defendant. The defense consisted of the claim that these goods were part of one order, of which two other lots, not delivered, formed an intrinsic part. That was substantially the one issue litigated.

There was introduced in evidence by defendant an unsigned memorandum, as its Exhibit 1, made by plaintiffs’ salesman on a piece of paper, in which all four lots were enumerated. After having retired to deliberate, the jury asked, “Is defendant’s Exhibit 1 a contract in itself?” to which the court replied, “No.” Later the jury asked, “We wish to know whether this order slip, marked ‘Exhibit 1/ is a confirmation of an order, and is it legally binding on both parties concerned?” to which the court replied, “Yes.” To such reply, plaintiffs’" counsel excepted.

It is perfectly clear that Exhibit 1 was a mere private memorandum,, which was, as the court had correctly charged, not a contract, and equally it was not a confirmation 'of an order, and was not legally binding-on any one. The error related to a vital point ih the controversy, and was practically determinative of the issue.

Judgment reversed, and new trial granted, with costs to appellants-to abide the event.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

148 N.Y.S. 91, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kridel-v-brukenfeld-nyappterm-1914.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack