Swartz v. War Memorial Commission of Rochester case brief summary
267 N.Y.S.2d 253 (1966)
CASE FACTS
The agent sought to preclude the commission form interfering with his right to continue as sole concessionaire pursuant to a contract after he chose not to sell alcoholic beverages.
DISCUSSION
CONCLUSION
The court affirmed the summary judgment in favor of the commission, as modified, by retaining jurisdiction to declare the rights of the parties. The court held that the agent had a duty to apply for a license to sell beer and ale and that his failure to do so amounted to a default on his part of an obligation 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
.
267 N.Y.S.2d 253 (1966)
CASE SYNOPSIS
Plaintiff agent challenged the order of
the Supreme Court, Monroe County (New York), which denied his motion
for summary judgment and granted the motion of defendants, the
commission and others, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint
in the action to decree rights under a contract.CASE FACTS
The agent sought to preclude the commission form interfering with his right to continue as sole concessionaire pursuant to a contract after he chose not to sell alcoholic beverages.
DISCUSSION
- The court affirmed the judgment.
- The court modified the judgment to retain jurisdiction to declare the rights of the parties.
- The court concluded that under the contract, it was the agent's duty to apply for a license and to attempt to qualify himself to sell beer and ale.
- The agreement expressed the mutual intent of the parties that the agent was to perform the services provided for in the contract, one of which was to sell alcoholic beverages whenever the prohibition against such sale had been removed.
- The agent's promise to pay the commission a percentage of the gross receipts resulting from the exclusive agency was a promise to use reasonable efforts to bring profits and revenues into existence.
- The court held that the agent had a duty to apply for the liquor license and his failure to do so amounted to a default on his part of an obligation of the contract.
- The court held that the contract was terminated in accordance with its terms.
CONCLUSION
The court affirmed the summary judgment in favor of the commission, as modified, by retaining jurisdiction to declare the rights of the parties. The court held that the agent had a duty to apply for a license to sell beer and ale and that his failure to do so amounted to a default on his part of an obligation 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