Legal Opinion
Apfel v. Prudential-Bache Securities Inc.
New York Court of Appeals
Decided July 8, 1993PublishedCited by 116 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
Simons, J.
Defendant, an investment bank, seeks to avoid an agreement to purchase plaintiffs’ idea for issuing and selling municipal bonds. Its principal contention is that plaintiffs had no property right in the idea because it was not novel and, therefore, consideration for the contract was lacking. For reasons which follow, we conclude that a showing of novelty is not required to validate the contract. The decisive question is whether the idea had value, not whether it was novel.
I
In 1982, plaintiffs, an investment banker and a lawyer, approached defendant’s predecessor…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Weiner v. McGraw-Hill, Inc.New York Court of Appeals · 1982
- Miller v. . SchlossNew York Court of Appeals · 1916
- Mencher v. WeissNew York Court of Appeals · 1953
- Hamer v. . SidwayNew York Court of Appeals · 1891
- Wahl v. . BarnumNew York Court of Appeals · 1889
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by116 opinions
- Wrench Llc, a Michigan Limited Liability Company Joseph Shields Thomas Rinks v. Taco Bell Corp.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2001
- Craig P. Nadel, Plaintiff-Counter-Defendant-Appellant-Cross-Appellee v. Play-By-Play Toys & Novelties, Inc., Defendant-Counter-Claimant-AppelleeCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2000
- Superintendent of Insurance for New York v. Ochs (In re First Central Financial Corp.)Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2004
- Softel, Inc. v. Dragon Medical And Scientific Communications, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1997
- Wolff v. Rare Medium, Inc.District Court, S.D. New York · 2001
111 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.