McCormack Motor Sales v. Hayes

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

McCormack Motor Sales v. Hayes

42 A.D.2d 788, 346 N.Y.S.2d 460, 1973 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3711

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

DecidedJuly 30, 1973

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 42 A.D.2d 788 (McCormack Motor Sales v. Hayes) 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

McCormack Motor Sales v. Hayes, 42 A.D.2d 788, 346 N.Y.S.2d 460, 1973 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3711 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1973).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action inter alia to recover balances due on contracts under which two motor vehicles were sold and delivered to defendant, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, entered January 31, 1973, which denied its motion for summary judgment. Order affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements. In our opinion, the paroi evidence rule does not operate to preclude proof of defendant’s claims (1) that he relied in good faith upon plaintiff’s agent’s fraudulent misrepresentation that the prices stated on the purchase order forms would not be operative and (2) that said agent had apparent authority to make such representation (cf. Exchange Leasing Corp. v. Bundy, 29 A D 2d 828; 9 Wigmore, Evidence [3cl ed.], § 2442 ; 3 Corbin, Contracts, § 573). Rabin, P. J., Munder, Latham, Shapiro and Gulotta, JJ., concur.

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

In an action inter alia to recover balances due on contracts under which two motor vehicles were sold and delivered to defendant, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, entered January 31, 1973, which denied its motion for summary judgment. Order affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements. In our opinion, the paroi evidence rule does not operate to preclude proof of defendant’s claims (1) that he relied in good faith upon plaintiff’s agent’s fraudulent misrepresentation that the prices stated on the purchase order forms would not be operative and (2) that said agent had apparent authority to make such representation (cf. Exchange Leasing Corp. v. Bundy, 29 A D 2d 828; 9 Wigmore, Evidence [3cl ed.], § 2442 ; 3 Corbin, Contracts, § 573). Rabin, P. J., Munder, Latham, Shapiro and Gulotta, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

42 A.D.2d 788, 346 N.Y.S.2d 460, 1973 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3711, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mccormack-motor-sales-v-hayes-nyappdiv-1973.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack