Shapiro v. George F. Driscoll Co.
266 A.D. 260, 42 N.Y.S.2d 94, 1943 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3534
Opinions
The terms and specifications of the contract were so clear as to make it impossible as matter of law to claim that they contained an ambiguity which would justify submitting that question to a jury. Since there was no ambiguity in the contract, the conversations between the subcontractor and the architects raise no issue which should have been further litigated.
The judgment should be affirmed, with costs.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Shapiro v. George F. Driscoll Co., 266 A.D. 260, 42 N.Y.S.2d 94, 1943 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3534 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1943).
266 A.D. 260 (Shapiro v. George F. Driscoll Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Collins v. State of New York
181 N.E. 357 (New York Court of Appeals, 1932)
Hedeman v. Fairbanks, Morse & Co.
36 N.E.2d 129 (New York Court of Appeals, 1941)
Borough Construction Co. v. City of New York
93 N.E. 480 (New York Court of Appeals, 1910)