Legal Opinion · Concurrence

In re Arbitration between Exercycle Corp. & Maratta

New York Court of Appeals

Decided March 23, 1961Published

1Concurrence

Froessel, J. (concurring).

I am in agreement with the majority that there should be an affirmance here. I do not agree, however, with their reasoning that it was error for the Appellate Division to pass on the question of the alleged lack of mutuality of the contract or its illusory nature. The notice of *338motion for a stay was made upon the ground that the contract “ is void and unenforceable on its face ”. Should there in fact be an absence of mutuality of obligation, or illusoriness—‘Which in essence means an absence of consideration—‘the purported contract would be invalid and unenforcible,…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Matter of Berkovitz v. . Arbib HoulbergNew York Court of Appeals · 1921
  2. Matter of Lipman (Haeuser Shellac Co.)New York Court of Appeals · 1942
  3. Matter of Kramer Uchitelle, Inc.New York Court of Appeals · 1942
  4. Oscar Schlegel Manufacturing Co. v. Peter Cooper's Glue FactoryNew York Court of Appeals · 1921
  5. Finsilver, Still & Moss, Inc. v. Goldberg, Maas & Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1930

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API