Legal Opinion
Vacuum Concrete Corp. of America v. American MacHine & Foundry Co.
District Court, S.D. New York
Decided January 7, 1971No. 67 Civ. 314PublishedCited by 22 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MANSFIELD, District Judge.
In this action brought under our diversity jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1332, plaintiff Vacuum Concrete Corporation of America (“Vacuum”) claims that defendant American Machine & Foundry Co. (“AMF”) breached a contractual duty to make diligent and good faith efforts to exploit a device which Vacuum had licensed to AMF. 1 Vacuum seeks compensatory damages for the breach in the amount of $1,300,000. AMF has moved for summary judgment under Rule 56, F.R.Civ.P., on the ground that no “best efforts” duty can be implied. For the reasons stated below, the motion is granted.
The…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- United States v. Diebold, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1962
- Wood v. . Duff-GordonNew York Court of Appeals · 1917
- Empire Electronics Co., Inc. v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1962
- Fogelson v. Rackfay Construction Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1950
- Genet v. President of the Delaware & Hudson Canal Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1893
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by22 opinions
- Emerson Radio Corp. v. Orion Sales, Inc. Otake Trading Co. Ltd. Technos Development Limited Shigemasa Otake John Richard BondCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2001
- Flight Concepts Ltd. Partnership v. Boeing Co.District Court, D. Kansas · 1993
- Havel v. Kelsey-Hayes Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1981
- Permanence Corporation v. Kennametal, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1990
- Aventis Environmental Science USA LP v. Scotts Co.District Court, S.D. New York · 2005
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.