Rite Fabrics, Inc. v. Stafford-Higgins Co., Inc.

366 F. Supp. 1
CourtDistrict Court, S.D. New York
DecidedOctober 5, 1973
Docket68 Civ. 2646, 68 Civ. 4482
StatusPublished
Cited by25 cases

This text of 366 F. Supp. 1 (Rite Fabrics, Inc. v. Stafford-Higgins Co., Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Rite Fabrics, Inc. v. Stafford-Higgins Co., Inc., 366 F. Supp. 1 (S.D.N.Y. 1973).

Opinion

OPINIONS, FINDINGS OF FACT and CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

LEVET, District Judge.

This action was brought by plaintiff for an amount due on a contract for the sale of fabric which was sold, delivered and then subsequently used by defendant. Defendant has counterclaimed for the amount of damages it has sustained due to an alleged breach of warranty of merchantability and fitness for a particular use. Defendant has also impleaded a third-party defendant which defendant alleges is also liable for the breach.

This case was tried to the court without a jury. Substantial issues of fact and law were involved in this -action. The court has carefully examined the proof submitted and after extensive consideration has decided the issues of law as hereinafter enunciated.

After hearing the testimony of the parties, examining the exhibits and the Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law submitted by counsel, this court makes the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law:

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. This court has jurisdiction over the subject matter and parties of this action. 28 U.S.C.A. § 1332.

2. Plaintiff, Rite Fabrics, Inc. (“Rite Fabrics”), is, and at the time of the commencement of this action was, a corporation organized under the laws of the State of New York, maintaining its principal place of business at 135 West 37 Street, New York, New York. Plaintiff is engaged in the business of converting and jobbing textiles; as such it contracts with dyers and printers of textiles to change cloth material from a greige state to a finished state and subsequently sells the finished fabric to manufacturers of garments. (Plaintiff’s post-trial proposed findings of fact No. 1.)

3. Defendant, Stafford-Higgins Industries, Inc. (“Stafford-Higgins”), is, and at all times relevant to this action was, a Connecticut corporation having its principal place of business and office at Willard Road, Norwalk, Connecticut. Stafford-Higgins has manufactured only women’s swimwear since 1949. (120, 121.) 1

4. Third-party defendant, Gaytone Fabrics, Inc., is a New York corporation with its office and principal place of business at the time of this action at 135 West 37 Street, New York, New York.

5. Leo Levine, Inc. (“Levine”) is a selling agent for Stafford-Higgins and *4 sold textiles for Stafford-Higgins at all times relevant to this action. (22.) Levine also has advised Stafford-Higgins with respect to goods and styles which Stafford-Higgins may use in its production of women’s swimwear, and did so at all times relevant to this action. (23.)

6. At or about late June or early July 1967, Levine, as agent for Stafford-Higgins placed an order with Rite Fabrics for a sample purchase of ten yards of an acetate and rayon tricot fabric which had an “animal print” on it. (24, 26, 27; Ex. NN.) This order was placed through a salesman for Rite Fabrics named Harry Feinberg (“Feinberg”). (24.) Levine also ordered five yards of a voile fabric as a sample to be used in conjunction with the acetate and rayon tricot to make three-piece women’s swim suit sets. (27.)

7. Feinberg was acquainted with Stafford-Higgins as a manufacturer of women’s swimwear and had dealt with it on prior occasions. (26.) Feinberg also knew that Stafford-Higgins was then designing a woman’s swim suit set with the sample fabric which Levine had ordered and received from Rite Fabrics. (27.)

8. The aforesaid sample fabric ordered by Levine from Rite Fabrics through Feinberg was subsequently delivered to Stafford-Higgins and was received by Clifford Holcomb, the purchasing agent for Stafford-Higgins, in Nor-walk, Connecticut. (46, 49, 54; Exs. NN, OO.) This sample fabric was subsequently cut and sample women’s swimwear garments were made out of it in and around July 1967. (55.)

9. Holcomb, acting for Stafford-Higgins, subsequently ordered another sample of the heretofore-mentioned fabric (Finding of Fact 8) from Rite Fabrics. That order was received by Stafford-Higgins at or about the end of July 1967 in Norwalk, Connecticut. (66; Ex. PP. Stafford-Higgins made this fabric into sample women’s swimwear at or about early August 1967. (67.)

10. At or about late August or early September 1967, Holcomb for Stafford-Higgins placed an order with plaintiff, Rite Fabrics, for 2,675 yards of the voile and 2,400 years of the acetate which Stafford-Higgins used to make sample swimwear. These orders were placed by Holcomb for Stafford-Higgins by telephone to Rite Fabrics. (58, 68, 689, 690) and were subsequently confirmed by Stafford-Higgins in writing. (Ex. A3.) The form of that order contained the following conspicuous wording in large capital letters: “THESE GOODS TO BE USED FOR SWIMWEAR. ALL COLORS, PRINTS AND BONDING PROCESSES MUST MEET SWIMWEAR SPECIFICATIONS.” (Ex. A3; Appendix A.)

On the reverse side of that order form were the following paragraphs:

“Merchandise will conform to accepted samples or to Stafford-Higgins Co., Inc. specifications, whichever the ease may be or both.
“If terms on this order do not appear on or agree with Seller’s invoice as rendered, Seller agrees that Stafford-Higgins Co., Inc. may change invoice to conform to this order and make payment accordingly.”

Plaintiff never objected to any of these terms either orally, in writing or otherwise.

11. In and about October 1967, Feinberg, Rite Fabrics’ salesman, telephoned Holcomb and suggested another acetate to be used by Stafford-Higgins to replace the acetate Stafford-Higgins had been buying up to that date. (77; Exs. A3, B.) That new fabric was made of a heavier weight and thus could be used for the bikini bottom of the three-piece outfit, eliminating the necessity of attaching a fabric lining. Holcomb inquired of Feinberg as to whether the superknit would meet the swimwear specifications as stated on the Stafford-Higgins’ order form. (Ex. A3.) Feinberg thereupon assured Holcomb that the superknit would meet the swimwear specifications as stated on defendant Stafford-Higgins’ order form. (83.) Holcomb subsequently received a sample of *5 the new superknit which he found to be as Feinberg had previously described. (78, 83, 84, 85; Exs. RR, SS.)

12. Stafford-Higgins subsequently placed eleven more orders with Rite Fabrics during the period October 1967 and April 1968. Each of these Stafford-Higgins’ order forms stated thereon “3411 AS HAD” (Exs. A3-L), thus incorporating by reference the Stafford-Higgins’ order form of Exhibit A3. 2

The invoices issued by Rite Fabrics delivered with the goods stated in non-conspicuous small print: 3 “No refunds after 5 days. Check goods before cutting.” (Exs. 2-13; Appendix B.) There was no reference to warranties or disclaimer of fitness for use on any part of the Rite-Fabric invoice, either directly or by incorporation by reference.

Rite Fabrics and Stafford-Higgins both stipulated to the purchase and delivery of the goods mentioned above. (5, 87, 88.)

13.

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

Related

Brownfield v. Bonta
N.D. California, 2022
BAE Sys. Info. v. SpaceKey Components
2013 DNH 064 (D. New Hampshire, 2013)
Stemcor USA, Inc. v. Trident Steel Corp.
471 F. Supp. 2d 362 (S.D. New York, 2006)
S&F Concrete Contractors, Inc. v. Strickland Systems, Inc.
3 Mass. L. Rptr. 617 (Massachusetts Superior Court, 1995)
Alloy Computer Products, Inc. v. Northern Telecom, Inc.
683 F. Supp. 12 (D. Massachusetts, 1988)
Diskin v. JP Stevens & Co., Inc.
652 F. Supp. 553 (D. Massachusetts, 1987)
Happy Dack Trading Co., Ltd. v. Agro-Industries, Inc.
602 F. Supp. 986 (S.D. New York, 1984)
Preston Farm & Ranch Supply, Inc. v. Bio-Zyme Enterprises
625 S.W.2d 295 (Texas Supreme Court, 1981)
Romicon, Inc. v. L & J of New England, Inc.
1981 Mass. App. Div. 164 (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div., 1981)
Grumman Flxible Corp. v. City of Long Beach
505 F. Supp. 623 (E.D. New York, 1980)
People v. Porpora
91 Cal. App. 3d 1051 (Appellate Division of the Superior Court of California, 1979)
Trust Co. Bank v. Barrett Distributors, Inc.
459 F. Supp. 959 (S.D. Indiana, 1978)
Uniroyal, Inc. v. Chambers Gasket & Manufacturing Co.
380 N.E.2d 571 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1978)
Brisset v. Allstate Insurance
93 Misc. 2d 1130 (Civil Court of the City of New York, 1978)
Steiner v. Mobil Oil Corp.
569 P.2d 751 (California Supreme Court, 1977)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
366 F. Supp. 1, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rite-fabrics-inc-v-stafford-higgins-co-inc-nysd-1973.