Wise & Co. v. Wecoline Products, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Wise & Co. v. Wecoline Products, Inc.

261 A.D. 886, 25 N.Y.S.2d 205

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

DecidedFebruary 7, 1941

StatusPublished

This text of 261 A.D. 886 (Wise & Co. v. Wecoline Products, Inc.) 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

Wise & Co. v. Wecoline Products, Inc., 261 A.D. 886, 25 N.Y.S.2d 205 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1941).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The judgment and order should be reversed, with costs, and the complaint dismissed, with costs, for the reason that the plaintiff failed to establish any uniform force majeure clause customary in the trade. That fact is manifest from the evidence of the three witnesses who testified on that subject for the plaintiff. Although some kind of a force majeure clause appears commonly to have been inserted in contracts for the sale of cocoanut oil, they differed in such important respects in their terms that it cannot be said that parties in the trade contracted with relation to any particular force majeure clause. Under at least one such clause the defendant would not be liable in this action.

Glennon, Untermyer, Dore and Callahan, JJ., concur; Martin, P. J., dissents.

Judgment and order reversed, with costs, and the complaint dismissed, with costs.

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

Per Curiam.

The judgment and order should be reversed, with costs, and the complaint dismissed, with costs, for the reason that the plaintiff failed to establish any uniform force majeure clause customary in the trade. That fact is manifest from the evidence of the three witnesses who testified on that subject for the plaintiff. Although some kind of a force majeure clause appears commonly to have been inserted in contracts for the sale of cocoanut oil, they differed in such important respects in their terms that it cannot be said that parties in the trade contracted with relation to any particular force majeure clause. Under at least one such clause the defendant would not be liable in this action.

Glennon, Untermyer, Dore and Callahan, JJ., concur; Martin, P. J., dissents.

Judgment and order reversed, with costs, and the complaint dismissed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

261 A.D. 886, 25 N.Y.S.2d 205, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wise-co-v-wecoline-products-inc-nyappdiv-1941.