Legal Opinion
Austin Instrument, Inc. v. Loral Corp.
New York Court of Appeals
Decided July 6, 1971PublishedCited by 153 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Chief Judge Fuld.
The defendant, Loral Corporation, seeks to recover payment for goods delivered under a contract which it had with plaintiff Austin Instrument, Inc., on the ground that the evidence establishes, as a matter of law, that it was forced to agree to an increase in price on the items in question under circumstances amounting to economic duress.
In July of 1965, Loral was awarded a $6,000,000 contract by the Navy for the production of radar sets. The contract contained a schedule of deliveries, a liquidated damages clause applying to late deliveries and a cancellation clause in case…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Adams v. . Irving National BankNew York Court of Appeals · 1889
- Port Chester Electrical Construction Corp. v. Hastings Terraces, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1954
- Boss v. HutchinsonAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1918
- Halperin v. WolosoffAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1953
- J. R. Construction Corp. v. Berkeley Apts., Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1940
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by153 opinions
- Spinelli v. National Football LeagueCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2018
- 805 Third Ave. Co. v. M.W. Realty AssociatesNew York Court of Appeals · 1983
- Rose v. Vulcan Materials CompanySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1973
- Friar v. Vanguard Holding Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1980
- The First National Bank of Cincinnati v. Sidney Pepper, Elsie W. Cox, Defendants-Cross-Claimants-Appellants, Modern Talking Picture Service, Inc.Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1972
148 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.