Legal Opinion
Schwartz v. Greenberg
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided December 3, 1951PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
In our opinion the proof establishes that there was a valid and binding oral agreement entered into by the parties upon which their minds met in all respects; and failure to deliver a signed copy of the writing setting forth the terms of that agreement cannot defeat its enforcement. (Pratt v. Hudson Riv. R. R. Co., 21 N. Y. 305, 308; Sherry v. Proal, 131 App. Div. 774, 776.) The signing by respondent of a copy of the writing setting forth the terms of the agreement constituted a memorandum sufficient to satisfy the Statute of Frauds. (2 Williston on Contracts [Bev. ed.], § 579A; Restatement,…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Agar v. OrdaNew York Court of Appeals · 1934
- Pratt v. . Hudson River Railroad CompanyNew York Court of Appeals · 1860
- Argus Co. v. . Mayor, Etc., of AlbanyNew York Court of Appeals · 1874
- Sherry v. ProalAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1909
- Schwartz v. GreenbergNew York Supreme Court · 1951
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Smith v. Onyx Oil & Chemical Co.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1955
- Smith v. Onyx Oil And Chemical CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1955
- Brownie's Army & Navy Store, Inc. v. E. J. Burke, Jr., Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1980
- Mishkin v. Ensminger (In Re Adler, Coleman Clearing Corp.)United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. New York · 1998