Robinson v. Adolph Raudnitz Co.

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Robinson v. Adolph Raudnitz Co.

123 N.Y.S. 117

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedMay 24, 1910

StatusPublished

This text of 123 N.Y.S. 117 (Robinson v. Adolph Raudnitz Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Robinson v. Adolph Raudnitz Co., 123 N.Y.S. 117 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1910).

Pincite

Opinion

SEABURY, J.

Plaintiff sues to recover damages for the alleged breach of a contract of employment. An examination of the record establishes that the plaintiff failed to prove that a contract for any particular period of time existed between the plaintiff arid defendant. That such a contract was in contemplation is evident, as is also the fact that the parties did not come to any agreement. While this was the situation, the plaintiff did work for the defendant, as he had done for several years prior to that time.

While this work was done in the expectation that a contract would be entered into, the fact remains that there was a dispute between the parties as to what the terms of the contract should be. Under these circumstances, the notification of the plaintiff by the defendant that it would not require his services after a specified date cannot be construed into a breach of contract.

Judgment reversed, and a new trial ordered, with costs to the appellant to abide the event. All concur.

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

SEABURY, J.

Plaintiff sues to recover damages for the alleged breach of a contract of employment. An examination of the record establishes that the plaintiff failed to prove that a contract for any particular period of time existed between the plaintiff arid defendant. That such a contract was in contemplation is evident, as is also the fact that the parties did not come to any agreement. While this was the situation, the plaintiff did work for the defendant, as he had done for several years prior to that time.

While this work was done in the expectation that a contract would be entered into, the fact remains that there was a dispute between the parties as to what the terms of the contract should be. Under these circumstances, the notification of the plaintiff by the defendant that it would not require his services after a specified date cannot be construed into a breach of contract.

Judgment reversed, and a new trial ordered, with costs to the appellant to abide the event. All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

123 N.Y.S. 117, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/robinson-v-adolph-raudnitz-co-nyappterm-1910.