Canadian Industrial Alcohol Co. v. Dunbar Molasses Co. case brief
summary
179 N.E. 383 (1932)
CASE FACTS
Plaintiff and defendant entered into a contract for a specific and identified product. The contract provided that if the product failed to come into existence, the obligations of both parties would be terminated. Upon defendant's failure to deliver the product, plaintiff sued defendant for breach of contract. Defendant argued that its duty to deliver was conditioned upon its supplier's willingness to supply a sufficient amount of the product to fulfill plaintiff's order. The trial court found in favor of plaintiff, and the intermediate appellate court affirmed.
DISCUSSION
CONCLUSION
The court affirmed, holding that defendant's duty to perform under the contract was not discharged because defendant could have assured itself a supply sufficient for its needs, and plaintiff was not informed that performance was conditioned upon defendant obtaining such a contract with its supplier.
Recommended Supplements and Study Aids for Property Law
Shop for Law School Course Materials.
179 N.E. 383 (1932)
CASE SYNOPSIS
Defendant appealed a judgment of the
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial
Department (New York) affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff in a
breach of contract case.CASE FACTS
Plaintiff and defendant entered into a contract for a specific and identified product. The contract provided that if the product failed to come into existence, the obligations of both parties would be terminated. Upon defendant's failure to deliver the product, plaintiff sued defendant for breach of contract. Defendant argued that its duty to deliver was conditioned upon its supplier's willingness to supply a sufficient amount of the product to fulfill plaintiff's order. The trial court found in favor of plaintiff, and the intermediate appellate court affirmed.
DISCUSSION
- The court here affirmed, holding that because defendant could have assured itself a supply sufficient for its needs, and because plaintiff was not informed that performance was conditioned upon defendant obtaining such a contract with its supplier, defendant's duty to perform under the contract was not discharged.
CONCLUSION
The court affirmed, holding that defendant's duty to perform under the contract was not discharged because defendant could have assured itself a supply sufficient for its needs, and plaintiff was not informed that performance was conditioned upon defendant obtaining such a contract with its supplier.
Recommended Supplements and Study Aids for Property Law
Shop for Law School Course Materials.
No comments:
Post a Comment