Weber v. Loft Candy Corp.
This text of 277 A.D.2d 1005 (Weber v. Loft Candy 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.
Opinion
In an action to recover damages for breach of a contract,, order denying motion of defendant for summary judgment affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. The written contract was made on behalf of defendant’s predecessor, a corporation, by its sales manager, and it must be assumed on this motion that it was also executed with knowledge and approval of the corporation’s president. As one which was capable of being approved by the board of directors, it was prima facie validly executed on behalf of the corporation. {Hastings v. Brooklyn Life Ins. Co., 138 N. Y. 473, 479; Westchester Mtge. Co. v. Mclntire, Inc., 174 App. Div. 446, 447.) Proof is material with respect to the custom of the corporation and authority of the sales manager and president {Hardin v. Morgan Lithograph Co., 247 N. Y. 332, 338, 339; Twyeffort v. Unexcelled Mfg. Co., 263 N. Y. 6, 9, 10; Lehigh Structural Steel Co. V. Great Lakes Gonstr. Co., 72 F. 2d 229, 231), as is also proof of the apparent authority of the officers, the knowledge of the corporation and defendant of the contract and the benefits reaped by them during the course of performance by plaintiff. {Lord v. United States Transp. Co., 143 App. Div. 437, 450-452.) Nolan, P. J., Carswell, Sneed, Wenzel and MaeCrate, JJ., concur. [See post, p. 1048.]
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
277 A.D.2d 1005, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/weber-v-loft-candy-corp-nyappdiv-1950.