Legal Opinion
David Taylor Co. v. Fansteel Products Co.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided February 11, 1932PublishedCited by 2 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtSherman, J.
The controlling question is whether or not the amended complaint must meet dismissal upon the ground that the agreement sued on does not constitute an integrated written contract in which are embodied all of the essential terms as required by the Statute of Frauds. The contract is for the sale and delivery of ore containing from thirty per cent to sixty per cent of tantalum oxide, of a value far in excess of fifty dollars, and is not to be performed within a period of one year. Defendant purchased thereunder all of the ore to be used and treated by it during the period *549of the contract.…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Williamsburg City Fire Insurance v. LichtensteinAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1918
- Barkley v. . Rensselaer and Saratoga R.R. Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1877
- Gordon v. . NiemannNew York Court of Appeals · 1890
- Large v. Wire Wheel Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1928
- Williamsburg City Fire Insurance v. LichtensteinNew York Supreme Court · 1916
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- A. M. Webb & Co. v. Robert P. Miller Co.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1946
- Konigsberg v. Security National BankDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1975