Legal Opinion

Outlet Embroidery Co. v. Mills

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

Decided January 31, 1930PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtO’Malley, J.

The essential facts upon which the action is predicated are stated in the dissenting opinion of Mr. Justice McAvoy. It is to be noted that the contract fixes a firm price. Because such price was made subject to possible future tariff revision, the agreement did not become unenforcible because of indefiniteness. Nothing in the pleading attacked shows any change in the existing tariff regulations. Such change would be a condition subsequent to be pleaded and proved by the defendant. If such revision would render the price indefinite or *114unascertainable, then it might be said that the defendant…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Heyman Cohen & Sons, Inc. v. M. Lurie Woolen Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1921

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. American Fire Prevention Bureau, Inc. v. Rockwood Sprinkler Co. of MassachusettsAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1935
  2. Edgar C. Ruwe Co. v. Layne & Bowler, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1933

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

Powered by the Exa API