M. Dean Kaufman, Inc. v. American Machine & Foundry Co.

254 A.2d 786, 54 N.J. 239, 1969 N.J. LEXIS 196
Supreme Court of New Jersey·Decided July 1, 1969·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

The opinion of the court was delivered

Per Curiam.

We affirm essentially for the reasons given by the Appellate Division. 102 N. J. Super. 1 (App. Div. 1968). However, without proof that it is generally recognized in the finder’s business or profession that “in contracts of this type, absent specific contractual language to the contrary, there is an implied prerequisite of 'authority to offer’ which must exist between the candidate and the agent-broker” (102 N. J. Super. 9), we are not prepared to agree with that conclusion of the Appellate Division.

Affirmed.

For affirmance — Chief Justice Weinteatjb and Justices Jacobs, Eeancis, Peoctoe, Hall, Schettino and Hake-man — 7.

For reversal — None.

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

M. Dean Kaufman, Inc. v. American Machine & Foundry Co., 254 A.2d 786, 54 N.J. 239, 1969 N.J. LEXIS 196 (N.J. 1969).

254 A.2d 786 (M. Dean Kaufman, Inc. v. American Machine & Foundry Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Kernan v. One Washington Park Urban Renewal Associates
713 A.2d 411 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1998)
KAZMER-STANDISH, ETC. v. Schoeffel Instrument
426 A.2d 1061 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1981)
Coleman v. Dover Corporation
384 F. Supp. 1401 (E.D. Tennessee, 1974)
Ass'n Group Life, Inc. v. Catholic War Veterans
293 A.2d 408 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1971)