Steinhilber v. Challenger Steel Products Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Steinhilber v. Challenger Steel Products Corp.

9 A.D.2d 695, 191 N.Y.S.2d 1009, 1959 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6571

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedOctober 26, 1959

StatusPublished

This text of 9 A.D.2d 695 (Steinhilber v. Challenger Steel Products Corp.) 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

Steinhilber v. Challenger Steel Products Corp., 9 A.D.2d 695, 191 N.Y.S.2d 1009, 1959 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6571 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1959).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for breach of contract, the appeal is from an order dismissing the complaint for insufficiency. It is alleged that respondent employed appellants on commission as sole distributor of its products. Order reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements, and motion denied, with $10 costs. Respondent, if so advised, may serve its answer within 10 days after the entry of the order hereon. The contract as pleaded does not lack mutuality. It is instinct with an obligation on the part of appellants to make a reasonable effort to sell the products of respondent, with price and other essential terms to be determined by the manufacturer (Wood v. Duff-Gordon, 222 N. Y. 88). Wenzel, Acting P. J., Beldoek, Murphy, Hallinan and Kleinfeld, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages for breach of contract, the appeal is from an order dismissing the complaint for insufficiency. It is alleged that respondent employed appellants on commission as sole distributor of its products. Order reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements, and motion denied, with $10 costs. Respondent, if so advised, may serve its answer within 10 days after the entry of the order hereon. The contract as pleaded does not lack mutuality. It is instinct with an obligation on the part of appellants to make a reasonable effort to sell the products of respondent, with price and other essential terms to be determined by the manufacturer (Wood v. Duff-Gordon, 222 N. Y. 88). Wenzel, Acting P. J., Beldoek, Murphy, Hallinan and Kleinfeld, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

9 A.D.2d 695, 191 N.Y.S.2d 1009, 1959 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6571, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/steinhilber-v-challenger-steel-products-corp-nyappdiv-1959.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack