Legal Opinion
D & N Boening, Inc. v. Kirsch Beverages, Inc.
New York Court of Appeals
Decided November 20, 1984PublishedCited by 189 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
Jasen, J.
We are asked on this appeal to decide whether the alleged oral franchise agreement between the parties is barred by the Statute of Frauds.
In 1955, defendants’ predecessor, Minck Beverages, the prime distributor of “Yoo-Hoo” chocolate beverage, entered into a verbal agreement with plaintiff’s predecessors, Joseph Boening and his sons. Pursuant thereto, the Boenings were granted the subdistribution rights of “Yoo-Hoo” beverage in Nassau County and a portion of Suffolk County as well. They were required to cease distribution of a competitor’s chocolate drink and, in…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Weiner v. McGraw-Hill, Inc.New York Court of Appeals · 1982
- Freedman v. Chemical Construction Corp.New York Court of Appeals · 1977
- North Shore Bottling Co. v. C. Schmidt & Sons, Inc.New York Court of Appeals · 1968
- Trustees of the First Baptist Ch. v. . Brooklyn Fire Ins.New York Court of Appeals · 1859
- Warner v. Texas & Pacific Railway Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1896
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by189 opinions
- South Cherry Street, LLC v. Hennessee Group LLCCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2009
- Cron v. Hargro Fabrics, Inc.New York Court of Appeals · 1998
- Guilbert v. GardnerCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2007
- Guilbert v. GardnerCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2007
- AHA Sales, Inc. v. Creative Bath Products, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2008
184 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.