Outlet Embroidery Co. v. Mills

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Outlet Embroidery Co. v. Mills

228 A.D. 113, 239 N.Y.S. 182, 1930 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12113

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided January 31, 1930·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinions

O’Malley, J.

The essential facts upon which the action is predicated are stated in the dissenting opinion of Mr. Justice McAvoy. It is to be noted that the contract fixes a firm price. Because such price was made subject to possible future tariff revision, the agreement did not become unenforcible because of indefiniteness. Nothing in the pleading attacked shows any change in the existing tariff regulations. Such change would be a condition subsequent to be pleaded and proved by the defendant. If such revision would render the price indefinite or [114] unascertainable, then it might be said that the defendant could avoid the obligation asserted against it. “ Indefiniteness must reach the point where construction becomes futile.” (Cohen .& Sons v. Lurie Woolen Co., 232 N. Y. 112, 114.) (See, also, Williston on Sales [2d ed.], § 8, p. 11.)

The order should be affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, with leave to the defendant to answer on payment of said costs and ten dollars costs of motion at Special Term.

Finch and Martin, JJ., concur; Dowling, P. J., and McAvoy, J., dissent.

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

O’Malley, J.

The essential facts upon which the action is predicated are stated in the dissenting opinion of Mr. Justice McAvoy. It is to be noted that the contract fixes a firm price. Because such price was made subject to possible future tariff revision, the agreement did not become unenforcible because of indefiniteness. Nothing in the pleading attacked shows any change in the existing tariff regulations. Such change would be a condition subsequent to be pleaded and proved by the defendant. If such revision would render the price indefinite or [114] unascertainable, then it might be said that the defendant could avoid the obligation asserted against it. “ Indefiniteness must reach the point where construction becomes futile.” (Cohen .& Sons v. Lurie Woolen Co., 232 N. Y. 112, 114.) (See, also, Williston on Sales [2d ed.], § 8, p. 11.)

The order should be affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, with leave to the defendant to answer on payment of said costs and ten dollars costs of motion at Special Term.

Finch and Martin, JJ., concur; Dowling, P. J., and McAvoy, J., dissent.

Outlet Embroidery Co. v. Mills, 228 A.D. 113, 239 N.Y.S. 182, 1930 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12113 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1930).

Pincite

228 A.D. 113 (Outlet Embroidery Co. v. Mills) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinions

Related