Legal Opinion
G. B. Kent & Sons, Ltd. v. Helena Rubinstein, Inc.
New York Court of Appeals
Decided July 10, 1979PublishedCited by 20 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
Jones, J.
The erroneous date rule — that a termination notice which erroneously identifies the termination date is nonetheless sufficient to effect a termination as of the first proper termination date — is applicable notwithstanding that termination triggered certain option rights in the recipient of the notice, at least where there is no proof that the application of the rule would impose any substantial forfeiture or prejudice.
In their 1965 agreement Kent granted Rubinstein a worldwide license to manufacture and sell men’s toiletries under the names and marks "Kent” and…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Kuehne & Nagel, Inc. v. BaidenNew York Court of Appeals · 1975
- Oldfield v. Chevrolet Motor Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1924
- Harrington v. Bremer County Farmers Mutual Fire InsuranceSupreme Court of Iowa · 1926
3Cited by20 opinions
- Accu-Weather, Inc. v. Prospect Communications, Inc.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1994
- National Gear & Piston, Inc. v. Cummins Power Systems, LLCDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2012
- Robert J. McRell Associates, Inc. v. Insurance Co. of North AmericaDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1987
- Richards v. Allianz Life Insurance Co. of North AmericaNew Mexico Court of Appeals · 2002
- American Food & Vending Corp. v. International Business Machines CorpAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1997
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.