You are here: / / DOCTRINE OF DEFINITENESS WAS PROPERLY NOT APPLIED, DOLLAR-AMOUNT OF THE...

DOCTRINE OF DEFINITENESS WAS PROPERLY NOT APPLIED, DOLLAR-AMOUNT OF THE FEE AT ISSUE COULD BE DETERMINED BY INDUSTRY PRACTICE.

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Manzanet-Daniels, determined the “doctrine of definiteness” should not be applied to an agreement in which the specific dollar-amount of a fee for financial advisory services, called a transaction fee, was not spelled out.  The contract stated only that the transaction fee would be “consistent with investment banking industry practice for transactions of comparable complexity, level of analysis and size.” Because the fee was ultimately determined by a method accepted in the investment banking industry, the fee was not rendered unenforceable by the “doctrine of definiteness:”

The doctrine of definiteness “assures that courts will not impose contractual obligations when the parties did not intend to conclude a binding agreement” … . It is to be sparingly used, as a “last resort,” and only when an agreement “cannot be rendered reasonably certain by reference to an extrinsic standard that makes its meaning clear” … . The Court of Appeals has cautioned that if applied with too “heavy [a] hand,” the doctrine may negate the reasonable expectations of the parties in entering into the contract … .

The “Transaction Fee” provision explicitly references the type of “commercial practice, or trade usage” New York courts routinely rely upon to render a price term sufficiently definite … . The fee [is] enforceable inasmuch as it may be ascertained from public price indices and industry practice … .

Where, as here, the record demonstrates that sophisticated parties intended to be bound by an agreement, the doctrine of definiteness should not be used to defeat the bargain of the parties … . Cowen & Co., LLC v Fiserv, Inc., 2016 NY Slip Op 03840, 1st Dept 5-17-16

CONTRACT LAW (DOCTRINE OF DEFINITENESS WAS PROPERLY NOT APPLIED, DOLLAR-AMOUNT OF THE FEE AT ISSUE COULD BE DETERMINED BY INDUSTRY PRACTICE)/DOCTRINE OF DEFINITENESS (CONTRACT LAW, DOCTRINE OF DEFINITENESS WAS PROPERLY NOT APPLIED, DOLLAR-AMOUNT OF THE FEE AT ISSUE COULD BE DETERMINED BY INDUSTRY PRACTICE)

You might also like
BECAUSE THE PETITIONERS CHOSE TO APPEAL THEIR TERMINATION FROM EMPLOYMENT AS CORRECTION OFFICERS TO THE NYC CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION INSTEAD OF BRINGING AN ARTICLE 78, THE COURT’S REVIEW POWERS ARE EXTREMELY LIMITED, THE TERMINATION WAS UPHELD (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF FELL GOING DOWN PERMANENT STEPS AFTER HE STEPPED OFF THE LADDER; THERE WAS NO LIABILITY UNDER LABOR LAW 240(1)—NO FAILURE OR ABSENCE OF A SAFETY DEVICE (FIRST DEPT).
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER LEG OF A CLOTHING RACK IN A STORE WAS OPEN AND OBVIOUS, STORE’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE PROPERLY DENIED (FIRST DEPT).
DEFENDANT STATED VALID COUNTERCLAIMS FOR FRAUDULENT INDUCEMENT, BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY AND NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION IN THIS BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION, SUPREME COURT REVERSED (FIRST DEPT).
VOLUNTARY PAYMENT OF CERTAIN CHARGES ASSESSED IN CONNECTION WITH REFINANCING MULTI-MILLION DOLLAR LOANS WARRANTED DISMISSAL OF THE COMPLAINT WHICH ALLEGED THE CHARGES WERE UNENFORCEABLE PENALTIES AND WERE PAID UNDER DURESS (FIRST SEPT). ​
Error to Impeach Defendant Re: Failure to Offer Exculpatory Version to Police; Error to Comment on Defendant’s Post-Arrest Silence (Harmless However)
THE JURY VERDICT FINDING THAT PLAINTIFF’S NEGLIGENCE WAS NOT THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF HER INJURIES WAS NOT INCONSISTENT AND SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SET ASIDE (SECOND DEPT).
THE PARTIES HAD ALREADY STIPULATED TO RESTORE THE ACTION TO THE CALENDAR; THE JUDGE SHOULD HAVE GRANTED PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO VACATE THE DISMISSAL OF THE ACTION FOR FAILURE TO APPEAR AT CONFERENCES OR OUTLINE REMAINING DISCOVERY (FIRST DEPT).

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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF EMPLOYEE WAS TERMINATED (NOT A VIOLATION... FAILURE TO STRICTLY COMPLY WITH CONDITION-PRECEDENT NOTICE PROVISIONS IN THE...