Hyperlawhypertext legal database Robert Gair Co. v. Armstrong 107 N.Y.S. 5

← Cases

Robert Gair Co. v. Armstrong

107 N.Y.S. 5 Court N.Y. App. Term Decision date 1907-11-29 English

Contents

Majority

p. 5
ROBERT GAIR CO. v. ARMSTRONG.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Term.
November 29, 1907.)

Headnote

Sales—Contract—Performance—Time. Defendant on April 28, 1903, ordered by letter from plaintiff a certain number of frames to be delivered within six weeks. This order was accepted, and on May 8th defendant ordered another lot of frames, writing on the foot of his letter of April 28th: “Note. Increase the above order to 5 M. of each.” Held, that the second order should be construed as made on the' same terms as the first, and that plaintiff was bound to de- • liver all the goods within six weeks.
[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 43, Sales, §§ 217-223.]
Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, Fourteenth District.
Action by the Robert Gair Company against Paul Armstrong. From a Municipal Court judgment in favor of plaintiff, defendant appeals. Reversed, and new trial ordered.
Argued before GIDDERSLFEVF, P. J., and EEVENTRITT and EREANGER, JJ.
Simon Sultan, for appellant.
Richard B. Aldcroftt, Jr., for respondent.

The action is for breach of contract. On April 28, 1903, defendant wrote to plaintiff, ordering a certain number of frames to be delivered within six weeks. On April 29th plaintiff wrote in reply, guaranteeing delivery of the frames within six weeks. These frames were so delivered, and as to them no dispute arises. On May 8th defendant went to plaintiff’s factory and ordered another lot of frames, writing on the foot of defendant’s letter of April 28th these words:

“Note. Increase the above order to 5 M. of each, and to be made paneled with pictures supplied.”
p. 6
These goods were not delivered in six weeks, and defendant refused to pay for them, or accept them, and canceled the contract, claiming that the failure to deliver them in six weeks prevented him from filling a contract with the American Tobacco Company, for which he counterclaims damages. The court found for plaintiff. Defendant appeals.

It seems to us that the second order must be construed as being made on the same terms as the first, and that the goods were to be delivered within six weeks, and that plaintiff accepted the order with this understanding.

The judgment must be reversed, and a new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide the event.