Legal Opinion

Simons v. Fried

New York Court of Appeals

Decided April 12, 1951PublishedCited by 14 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Loughran, Ch. J.

There is a public policy which in general holds competent contracting parties to bargains made by them with their eyes open. There is, however, an antagonistic public policy which proscribes any contract that would bring about an unreasonable restriction of the liberty of a man to earn *325Ms living or exercise Ms calling (see General Business Law, § 340). Whether the last-stated policy condemns a contract wMch is here before us is the question now to be determined.

The contract was made in 1947. There are four parties thereto, namely, Betty Fried and her husband Joseph Fried,…

2Cited by14 opinions

  1. S.S.D.W. Co. v. Brisk Waterproofing Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1990
  2. Kristt v. WhelanAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1957
  3. Greenwich Mills Co. v. Barrie House Coffee Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1983
  4. JTL Consulting, L.L.C. v. ShanahanMissouri Court of Appeals · 2006
  5. Evo v. Jomac, Inc.New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1972

9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API