Legal Opinion

Cohen v. Cerame

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

Decided June 14, 1949Published

1Per curiam

There was no meeting of the minds between the parties as to what was to be sold. In its circular offer defendant set forth that it had for sale “Haval Brass Rod.” Plaintiffs’ order was for a quality known as “free cutting brass rod ”, a type of brass which was not included in defendant’s offer of sale. Moreover, plaintiffs wanted immediate delivery whereas defendant only agreed to deliver when and if it received the merchandise from the War Assets Administration. All the correspondence in the case shows that the parties were not negotiating for the same thing or upon the same terms.

When…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Shields v. . PettieNew York Court of Appeals · 1850
  2. J. A. Kirsch & Co. v. BenyunesNew York Supreme Court · 1919
  3. J. A. Kirsch & Co. v. BenyunesAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1920

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

Powered by the Exa API