Hyperlawhypertext legal database North Side News Co. v. Cypres 132 N.Y.S. 806

← Cases

North Side News Co. v. Cypres

132 N.Y.S. 806 Court N.Y. App. Term Decision date 1912-01-09 English

Contents

Majority

p. 806
NORTH SIDE NEWS CO. v. CYPRES.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Term.
January 9, 1912.)

Headnote

Contracts (§ 22[1] ) — Offer — Acceptance—Effect.
The acceptance of an offer to pay a definite sum for specific advertisements during a definite period, as evidenced by an insertion of an advertisement, implies an agreement to publish the advertisement during the period for the definite sum, and the contract is binding on both parties.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Contracts, Cent. Dig. §§ 67-93, 104-108; Dec. Dig. § 22.[1] ]
Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of the Bronx, Second District.
Action by the North Side News Company against Michael H. Cypres. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.
Argued before GIEGERICH, LEHMAN, and PENDLETON, JJ.
Bloch & Hoffman (Alexander Bloch, of counsel), for appellant.
Henry W. Kiralfy, for respondent.

The plaintiff has recovered judgment for damages for breach of contract. The appellant claims that this contract is vqid for want of mutuality, and relies for authority upon the case of White v. Kingston Motor Car Co., 69 Misc. Rep. 627 , 126 N. Y. Supp. 150 . The contract contains no express agreement on the part of the plaintiff to perform any act, but “whether a covenant will be read into a contract, where there is no agreement to perform, depends upon the intent of the parties, gathered from the instrument and the surrounding circumstances.” Commercial Wood & Cement Co. v. Northampton Portland Cement Co., 115 App. Div. 388 , 393, 100 N. Y. Supp. 960 , affirmed on other grounds 190 N. Y. 1 , 82 N. E. 730 , 123 Am. St. Rep. 529 .

The acceptance of the offer, as evidenced by the insertion of the advertisement authorized by the defendant, did not, under the circumstances existing in the White Case, bind the plaintiff’s assignor to continue the insertions. It was merely the acceptance of the defendant’s offer to pay a certain amount per insertion. The acceptance of the whole offer was expressly made dependent upon confirmation

p. 807
by a committee of the corporation owning the newspaper. In this case the acceptance of the offer to pay a definite sum for the insertion of advertisements during a definite period necessarily implies that the plaintiff agreed to publish these advertisements during this period.

Judgment must therefore be affirmed, with costs.

Cases cited