Lucky Strike Coat Co. v. Julius Forstmann Corp.

The sole question here presented is whether a certain memorandum as executed is a sufficient compliance with the requirements of subdivision 1 of section 85 of the Personal Property Law. The memorandum was drawn on an order blank of the plaintiff corporation, which was the alleged purchaser; but it was a printed form devised for the use of plaintiff, not in pur*22chasing merchandise, but in selling to its customers. The explanation given for its use here is that at the time it was necessary to write the order, the representative of the defendant, the seller corporation, had no blanks of his own…