Weaver Organization, Inc. v. Manette

New York Court of Appeals

Weaver Organization, Inc. v. Manette

316 N.E.2d 869, 34 N.Y.2d 923, 359 N.Y.S.2d 552, 1974 N.Y. LEXIS 1427

DecidedJuly 10, 1974

StatusPublished

This text of 316 N.E.2d 869 (Weaver Organization, Inc. v. Manette) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Weaver Organization, Inc. v. Manette, 316 N.E.2d 869, 34 N.Y.2d 923, 359 N.Y.S.2d 552, 1974 N.Y. LEXIS 1427 (N.Y. 1974).

Pincite

Opinion

Memobaxdum. The order of the Appellate Division, First Department, should be modified in accordance with the following memorandum and, as so modified, affirmed.

[925]*925We agree with the Appellate Division that on this record P & F Industries, Inc. was entitled to rescission and complete restitution. On the cross appeal P & F seeks restitution from the appellants (Alfred Manette, Sidney Manette, and Irving Levinson) of the money advanced to Stuyvesant. The Appellate Division held that P & F should recover from Stuyvesant alone. On this point we disagree. The contract between P & F and the appellants obligated P & F to advance $150,000 to Stuyvesant as third-party beneficiary. After the money was paid P & F rescinded the agreement because of material misrepresentations. Under these circumstances P & F was also entitled to recover from the appellants the money paid to Stuyvesant on their behalf. (See Restatement, Restitution, § 17, Comment E.)

Accordingly the order of the Appellate Division, First Department, is modified to the extent of directing the appellants, Alfred Manette, Sidney Manette and Irving Levinson, to restore to P & F the amount advanced to Stuyvesant and in all other respects the order is affirmed.

Chief Judge Breitel and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler and Rabin concur; Judge Stevens taking no part.

Order modified, without costs, in accordance with the memorandum herein and, as so modified, affirmed.

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

Memobaxdum. The order of the Appellate Division, First Department, should be modified in accordance with the following memorandum and, as so modified, affirmed.

[925]*925We agree with the Appellate Division that on this record P & F Industries, Inc. was entitled to rescission and complete restitution. On the cross appeal P & F seeks restitution from the appellants (Alfred Manette, Sidney Manette, and Irving Levinson) of the money advanced to Stuyvesant. The Appellate Division held that P & F should recover from Stuyvesant alone. On this point we disagree. The contract between P & F and the appellants obligated P & F to advance $150,000 to Stuyvesant as third-party beneficiary. After the money was paid P & F rescinded the agreement because of material misrepresentations. Under these circumstances P & F was also entitled to recover from the appellants the money paid to Stuyvesant on their behalf. (See Restatement, Restitution, § 17, Comment E.)

Accordingly the order of the Appellate Division, First Department, is modified to the extent of directing the appellants, Alfred Manette, Sidney Manette and Irving Levinson, to restore to P & F the amount advanced to Stuyvesant and in all other respects the order is affirmed.

Chief Judge Breitel and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler and Rabin concur; Judge Stevens taking no part.

Order modified, without costs, in accordance with the memorandum herein and, as so modified, affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

316 N.E.2d 869, 34 N.Y.2d 923, 359 N.Y.S.2d 552, 1974 N.Y. LEXIS 1427, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/weaver-organization-inc-v-manette-ny-1974.