Legal Opinion
Frank Associates, Inc. v. John J. Ryan & Sons, Inc.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided December 16, 1952PublishedCited by 12 opinions
1Per curiam
Where as here ambiguity arises from the writings of parties to an agreement, the intention of the parties must be ascertained in the light of the surrounding facts and circumstances. Parol evidence is admissible for that purpose. (O’Neil Supply Co. v. Petroleum Meat & Power Co., 280 N. Y. 50, 56; Martin v. Crumb, 216 N. Y. 500, 505.) It is also well settled that cancellation of a contract must be clearly expressed. (Metallograph Corp. v. Arma Eng. Co., 205 App. Div. 100, 104, appeal dismissed 236 N. Y. 675.) Whether by exchange of letters in November, 1950, it was the intention of the parties…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- M. O'Neil Supply Co. v. Petroleum Heat & Power Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1939
- Metallograph Corp. v. Arma Engineering Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1923
- Martin v. . CrumbNew York Court of Appeals · 1916
3Cited by12 opinions
- Tobin v. Union News Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1963
- Strychalski v. MekusAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1976
- Posner v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.New York Supreme Court · 1962
- Invengineering, Inc. v. Foregger Company, Inc., and Lily M. Foregger. Invengineering, Inc. v. Foregger Company, Inc., and Lily M. ForeggerCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1961
- Associated Food Stores, Inc. v. SiegelAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1960
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.