Schenectady Steel Co., Inc. v. Bruno Trimpoli General
Constitutional Co., Inc. case brief summary
350 N.Y.S.2d 920 (1974)
CASE FACTS
Respondent construction company entered into a contract with appellant steel company in which appellant would furnish the structural steel necessary for the completion of a bridge. Appellant had difficulty obtaining the steel for the job and weather conditions further delayed appellant's progress. After appellant's completion date passed, respondent canceled the contract with appellant and contracted for the steel elsewhere. Appellant then brought an action to recover the reasonable value of the services it had provided, and respondent counterclaimed for damages due to appellant's failure to perform. The trial court dismissed appellant's complaint and gave judgment for respondent on its counterclaim.
DISCUSSION
The court affirmed the trial court's dismissal of appellant steel company's complaint because respondent construction company's letters to appellant calling for performance within a reasonable time, restored timeliness and justified respondent's termination of the contract.
Suggested law school course materials, hornbooks, and guides for Contract Law
Shop Amazon for the best prices on Law School Course Materials
.
350 N.Y.S.2d 920 (1974)
CASE SYNOPSIS
Appellant steel company challenged the
judgment of the Supreme Court (New York), which held in favor of
respondent construction company, dismissed appellant's complaint
based on contract law, and awarded judgment to respondent on its
counterclaim.CASE FACTS
Respondent construction company entered into a contract with appellant steel company in which appellant would furnish the structural steel necessary for the completion of a bridge. Appellant had difficulty obtaining the steel for the job and weather conditions further delayed appellant's progress. After appellant's completion date passed, respondent canceled the contract with appellant and contracted for the steel elsewhere. Appellant then brought an action to recover the reasonable value of the services it had provided, and respondent counterclaimed for damages due to appellant's failure to perform. The trial court dismissed appellant's complaint and gave judgment for respondent on its counterclaim.
DISCUSSION
- The court affirmed the trial court's dismissal of appellant's complaint, but not on the basis of violating the Uniform Commercial Code's (UCC's) requirement of giving adequate assurances.
- Since the contract was a service contract, the UCC did not apply.
- However, respondent's letters to appellant calling for performance within a reasonable time restored timeliness and justified termination of the contract.
- The court modified respondent's monetary award to reflect a correct calculation.
The court affirmed the trial court's dismissal of appellant steel company's complaint because respondent construction company's letters to appellant calling for performance within a reasonable time, restored timeliness and justified respondent's termination of the contract.
Suggested law school course materials, hornbooks, and guides for Contract Law
Shop Amazon for the best prices on Law School Course Materials
.
No comments:
Post a Comment