Unistel Textile Machine Corp. v. Struthers Wells Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Unistel Textile Machine Corp. v. Struthers Wells Corp.

25 A.D.2d 625, 268 N.Y.S.2d 973, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4808

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

DecidedMarch 8, 1966

StatusPublished

This text of 25 A.D.2d 625 (Unistel Textile Machine Corp. v. Struthers Wells 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

Unistel Textile Machine Corp. v. Struthers Wells Corp., 25 A.D.2d 625, 268 N.Y.S.2d 973, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4808 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment upon a verdict directed in favor of plaintiff, unanimously reversed, on the law, and a new trial ordered, with $50 costs to abide the event. The intent of the letter of August 24, 1962 was in our opinion a question of fact for the jury, and the determination by the court that the letter constituted a breach of contract as a matter of law must accordingly be deemed error. We find no other evidence on which to predicate a breach of contract as a matter of law. Plaintiff’s contention that defendant’s promise was wholly unconditional is in plain conflict with its terms, and whether defendant performed its implied covenant to use reasonable efforts to effect sales was on this record an issue of fact to be resolved by the jury.

Concur — Botein, P. J., McNally, Stevens, Steuer and Staley, JJ.

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

Judgment upon a verdict directed in favor of plaintiff, unanimously reversed, on the law, and a new trial ordered, with $50 costs to abide the event. The intent of the letter of August 24, 1962 was in our opinion a question of fact for the jury, and the determination by the court that the letter constituted a breach of contract as a matter of law must accordingly be deemed error. We find no other evidence on which to predicate a breach of contract as a matter of law. Plaintiff’s contention that defendant’s promise was wholly unconditional is in plain conflict with its terms, and whether defendant performed its implied covenant to use reasonable efforts to effect sales was on this record an issue of fact to be resolved by the jury.

Concur — Botein, P. J., McNally, Stevens, Steuer and Staley, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

25 A.D.2d 625, 268 N.Y.S.2d 973, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4808, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/unistel-textile-machine-corp-v-struthers-wells-corp-nyappdiv-1966.