You are here: / / Implied Definite Term of Duration

Implied Definite Term of Duration

The Second Department explained the analytical criteria for determining the duration of a contract with no express definite term of duration. If there is no definite term of duration, the contract is terminable at will.  However, a definite term of duration need not be express (it can be implied from the surrounding circumstances):

Contracts containing no definite term of duration are terminable at will … . A definite term of duration need not be relayed in express terms, and may be implied … , and “where a duration may be fairly and reasonably supplied by implication, a contract is not terminable at will … . “In the absence of an express term fixing the duration of a contract, the courts may inquire into the intent of the parties and supply the missing term if a duration may be fairly and reasonably fixed by the surrounding circumstances and the parties’ intent” … .

Here, the Supreme Court correctly determined that, by fair implication, the duration of the parties’ agreements was dependent upon the continued sale of the products designated in the subject agreements and, thus, the agreements could be terminated only upon [defendant’s] discontinuation of the sale of the designated products. Bennett v Atomic Prods. Corp., 2015 NY Slip Op 07806, 2nd Dept 10-28-15

 

You might also like
FAILURE TO APPLY FOR A STAY OF ARBITRATION WAIVES ANY CLAIM THE ARBITRATOR HAS EXCEEDED HIS/HER POWERS.
THE BANK’S EVIDENCE OF STANDING DID NOT INCLUDE THE BUSINESS RECORDS REFERRED TO IN THE LOAN SERVICER’S AFFIDAVIT, RENDERING THE AFFIDAVIT HEARSAY; THE BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
FOOT OF A DECORATIVE FENCE OVER WHICH PLAINTIFF TRIPPED WAS OPEN AND OBVIOUS AS A MATTER OF LAW.
THERE CAN BE MORE THAN ONE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF AN ACCIDENT; HERE PLAINTIFF BICYCLIST WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON LIABILITY BUT DEFENDANT DRIVER’S COMPARATIVE-NEGLIGENCE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE REMAINED VIABLE (SECOND DEPT).
RESPONDENT IS A DANGEROUS SEX OFFENDER REQUIRING CONFINEMENT, NOT STRICT AND INTENSIVE SUPERVISION AND TREATMENT (SIST), SUPREME COURT REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF COULD NOT IDENTIFY THE CAUSE OF HIS STAIRWAY FALL BUT HE TESTIFIED HE REACHED FOR A HANDRAIL AND THERE WAS NONE; DEFENDANTS DID NOT PRESENT ANY EVIDENCE ON THE PRESENCE OR NEED FOR A HANDRAIL; THERE CAN BE MORE THAN ONE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF A FALL; DEFENDANTS WERE NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT). ​
Jury Instructions Which Lumped Counts Together and Did Not Give the Jury the Information Necessary to Distinguish One Count from Another Mandated a New Trial
Snow Removal Contractor Owed Duty to Slip and Fall Plaintiff

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Affidavits and Text Messages Do Not Constitute “Documentary Evidence”... Non-Constitutional Appellate Issues Re: Refusal to Submit to a Chemical Test...