Legal Opinion

S. Stroock & Co. v. Joseph Lichtenthal, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Decided June 8, 1928PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtProskauer, J.

The defendant agreed to buy from the plaintiff merchandise described in a series of written contracts as “La Parisienne ” cloth. The contracts refer to no sample. They contain a clause reading as follows: “ Spongers’ or examiners’ examinations or reports will not be recognized by us and no claims or allowances, by reason of any examinations or reports, or because of variation in patterns, quality, color, or for any other reason, will be allowed.”

Upon the trial the plaintiff took the position that the exculpatory clause above quoted constituted the plaintiff “ a judge of what constitutes a…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. American Aniline Products, Inc. v. Mitsui & Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1920
  2. Standard Milling Company v. . De PassNew York Court of Appeals · 1915

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Industrial Rayon Corp. v. Clifton Yarn Mills, Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1932
  2. Stroock & Co. v. Lichtenthal, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1928
  3. Lumbrazo v. WoodruffAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1930
  4. McCrory Stores Corp. v. KominsPennsylvania Court of Common Pleas · 1932

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API