Mill Printing & Lithographing Corp. v. Solid Waste Management Systems, Inc.

65 A.D.2d 590, 409 N.Y.S.2d 257, 25 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. (West) 124, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13254
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedOctober 16, 1978
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 65 A.D.2d 590 (Mill Printing & Lithographing Corp. v. Solid Waste Management Systems, 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
Mill Printing & Lithographing Corp. v. Solid Waste Management Systems, Inc., 65 A.D.2d 590, 409 N.Y.S.2d 257, 25 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. (West) 124, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13254 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1978).

Opinion

In an action to rescind a contract on the ground of fraud, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, dated May 10, 1978, which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment. Order reversed, on the law, with $50 costs and disbursements, and motion denied. Plaintiff purchased a baler from defendant for $2,995, based upon an offer in a letter which represented that the machine was two years old and worth $4,250. On defendant’s motion for summary judgment, Special Term, relying on the purchase agreement signed by the plaintiff, found specifically that the baler therein described was of the design, fitness, size and capacity selected by the plaintiff, that it was sold "as is” and, inferentially, that there was a conspicuous disclaimer warranty (see Uniform Commercial Code, § 1-201, subd [10]). On this record we hold that the disclaimer, not being printed in different, larger or contrasting type or color, was not conspicuous. Nor do we find this agreement, signed only by the plaintiff, as the submitted record on appeal discloses, to be the complete and exclusive statement of the terms of the contract. In this posture, the defendant’s letter of August 23, 1977, offering the baler and making certain representations, is supplementary evidence of consistent additional terms and is not inadmissible under section 2-202 of the Uniform Commercial Code. On the record before us the representations as to age and value were put in issue by a showing that the baler was 10 years old and that a new model costs $2,950. In the absence of [591]*591any specification as to age or model year in the agreement, the age of this baler, as set forth in the letter, becomes a consistent additional term and, by operation of law, an express warranty (see Uniform Commercial Code, § 2-313). Hopkins, J. P., Martuscello, Rabin and Margett, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Wintel Service Corp. v. MSW Electronics Corp.
161 A.D.2d 764 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1990)
Kingsbury Wastepaper Co. v. National Shredder Co.
90 A.D.2d 535 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1982)
Laudisio v. Amoco Oil Co.
108 Misc. 2d 245 (New York Supreme Court, 1981)
Victor v. Mammana
101 Misc. 2d 954 (New York Supreme Court, 1979)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
65 A.D.2d 590, 409 N.Y.S.2d 257, 25 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. (West) 124, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13254, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mill-printing-lithographing-corp-v-solid-waste-management-systems-inc-nyappdiv-1978.