Tuohey v. Carvin Bottle Cap Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Tuohey v. Carvin Bottle Cap Corp.

257 A.D. 856, 12 N.Y.S.2d 516, 1939 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8179

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

DecidedMay 23, 1939

StatusPublished

This text of 257 A.D. 856 (Tuohey v. Carvin Bottle Cap 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

Tuohey v. Carvin Bottle Cap Corp., 257 A.D. 856, 12 N.Y.S.2d 516, 1939 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8179 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1939).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action by a salesman to recover commissions alleged to be due under a contract of employment, order denying defendant’s motion for partial summary judgment dismissing the first and second causes of action of plaintiff’s complaint affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. No opinion. Carswell, Adel and Close, JJ., concur; Lazansky, P. J., and Hagarty, J., dissent and vote to reverse and to grant defendant’s motion for partial summary judgment dismissing the first and second causes of action. The alleged contract constituting the basis of the first cause of action whereby defendant undertook to furnish screw caps to the distilling company was for part of the latter’s requirements to a maximum of sixty million. The contract makes no provision for a specific proportion of such maximum which is to be accepted by the distilling company. The latter obviously is endowed with discretion to determine what proportion, if any, of such caps it would take. The purported contract, therefore, is unenforceable. So too, with the alleged contract constituting the basis of plaintiff’s [857]*857second cause of action. As to that transaction, the distilling company struck out a provision providing for sale to it of a minimum of one million caps. There was no binding contract in either instance and, therefore, plaintiff is not entitled to commissions other than those which he has been paid.

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

In an action by a salesman to recover commissions alleged to be due under a contract of employment, order denying defendant’s motion for partial summary judgment dismissing the first and second causes of action of plaintiff’s complaint affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. No opinion. Carswell, Adel and Close, JJ., concur; Lazansky, P. J., and Hagarty, J., dissent and vote to reverse and to grant defendant’s motion for partial summary judgment dismissing the first and second causes of action. The alleged contract constituting the basis of the first cause of action whereby defendant undertook to furnish screw caps to the distilling company was for part of the latter’s requirements to a maximum of sixty million. The contract makes no provision for a specific proportion of such maximum which is to be accepted by the distilling company. The latter obviously is endowed with discretion to determine what proportion, if any, of such caps it would take. The purported contract, therefore, is unenforceable. So too, with the alleged contract constituting the basis of plaintiff’s [857]*857second cause of action. As to that transaction, the distilling company struck out a provision providing for sale to it of a minimum of one million caps. There was no binding contract in either instance and, therefore, plaintiff is not entitled to commissions other than those which he has been paid.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

257 A.D. 856, 12 N.Y.S.2d 516, 1939 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8179, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tuohey-v-carvin-bottle-cap-corp-nyappdiv-1939.