You are here: / / DOCTRINE OF INDEFINITENESS IMPROPERLY APPLIED TO ORAL CONTRACT; BOTH QUANTUM...

DOCTRINE OF INDEFINITENESS IMPROPERLY APPLIED TO ORAL CONTRACT; BOTH QUANTUM MERUIT AND BREACH OF CONTRACT PROPERLY PLED WHERE DEFENDANTS DENY EXISTENCE OF CONTRACT.

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined questions of fact precluded summary judgment in favor of defendants. Plaintiff alleged breach of an oral contract and quantum meruit (unjust enrichment) causes of action. Although there was no express agreement that plaintiff was entitled to payment for work done before termination, the doctrine of indefiniteness should not have been applied to dismiss the breach of contract claim. In addition, because defendants alleged there was no enforceable contract, plaintiff’s quantum meruit cause of action should not have been dismissed. Plaintiff does not have to elect a remedy (breach of contract or quantum meruit) in that circumstance. With regard to the breach of oral contract cause of action, the court wrote:

An oral agreement may be enforceable as long as the terms are clear and definite and the conduct of the parties evinces mutual assent “sufficiently definite to assure that the parties are truly in agreement with respect to all material terms” … . However, not all terms of a contract need be fixed with absolute certainty, and courts will not apply the doctrine of indefiniteness to “defeat the reasonable expectations of the parties in entering into the contract” … . Where “there may exist an objective method for supplying the missing terms needed to calculate the alleged compensation owed plaintiff,” a claimed oral agreement is “not as a matter of law unenforceable for indefiniteness” … . Kramer v Greene, 2016 NY Slip Op 05776, 1st Dept 8-11-16

CONTRACT LAW (DOCTRINE OF INDEFINITENESS IMPROPERLY APPLIED TO ORAL CONTRACT; BOTH QUANTUM MERUIT AND BREACH OF CONTRACT PROPERLY PLED WHERE DEFENDANTS DENY EXISTENCE OF CONTRACT)/INDEFINITENESS DOCTRINE (CONTRACT LAW, DOCTRINE OF INDEFINITENESS IMPROPERLY APPLIED TO ORAL CONTRACT)/QUANTUM MERUIT (BOTH QUANTUM MERUIT AND BREACH OF CONTRACT PROPERLY PLED WHERE DEFENDANTS DENY EXISTENCE OF CONTRACT)/UNJUST ENRICHMENT (BOTH QUANTUM MERUIT AND BREACH OF CONTRACT PROPERLY PLED WHERE DEFENDANTS DENY EXISTENCE OF CONTRACT)/ORAL CONTRACT (DOCTRINE OF INDEFINITENESS IMPROPERLY APPLIED TO ORAL CONTRACT; BOTH QUANTUM MERUIT AND BREACH OF CONTRACT PROPERLY PLED WHERE DEFENDANTS DENY EXISTENCE OF CONTRACT)

You might also like
PLAINTIFF, WHO WAS ASSAULTED IN DEFENDANT LANDLORD’S BUILDING, DID NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE ASSAILANT WAS AN INTRUDER, WHO ENTERED THROUGH AN ALLEGEDLY BROKEN DOOR, OR A TENANT OR AN INVITEE; IF THE ASSAILANT WERE A TENANT OR INVITEE, THE ALLEGEDLY BROKEN DOOR WOULD NOT BE A PROXIMATE CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S INJURY (FIRST DEPT).
THE SORA RISK-LEVEL MOTION COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE RE-OPENED THE HEARING TO AMEND ITS ORIGINAL RISK-LEVEL DETERMINATION; THE CRITERIA FOR A MOTION TO RENEW WERE NOT MET; THE “INHERENT AUTHORITY” TO RE-OPEN APPLIES ONLY WHEN THE ORIGINAL RULING WAS BASED ON A MISTAKE; THE PEOPLE WERE NOT DEPRIVED OF THE OPPORTUNITY TO APPLY FOR AN UPWARD DEPARTURE (FIRST DEPT).
TESTIMONY OF A DEFENSE WITNESS WHO IDENTIFIED PLAINTIFF AS THE PERSON FLEEING THE SCENE OF A CRIME SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN PRECLUDED IN THIS FALSE ARREST AND MALICIOUS PROSECUTION ACTION; THE JURY WAS NOT INSTRUCTED ON THE CRITERIA FOR A TERRY STOP; PLAINTIFF’S JUDGMENT VACATED AND NEW TRIAL ORDERED (FIRST DEPT).
Out-of-Possession Landlord Not Liable for Injury Caused by Trash Compactor on Property
RESPONDENT STATE COLLEGE WITHHELD EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE IN THIS COLLEGE MISCONDUCT PROCEEDING WHICH RESULTED IN PETITIONER-STUDENT’S EXPULSION; THE EXPULSION PENALTY WAS VACATED AND THE STUDENT WAS REINSTATED IN GOOD STANDING (FIRST DEPT). ​
BROADER FLORIDA STATUTE COULD NOT PROVIDE THE BASIS FOR SECOND FELONY OFFENDER STATUS.
CONTINGENCY FEE RETAINER VIOLATED FEDERAL LAW AND WAS VOID, UNJUST ENRICHMENT THEORY NOT AVAILABLE ON EQUITABLE AND EVIDENTIARY GROUNDS (FIRST DEPT).
THE NYC DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES DOES NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO RECOVER MEDICAID OVERPAYMENTS FROM PERSONAL CARE SERVICE PROVIDERS (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

CONTRACT PROVISION WHICH PURPORTED TO EXTEND THE ACCRUAL OF BREACH OF CONTRACT... IN THIS ACTION STEMMING FROM DEFECTIVE RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE BACKED SECURITIES,...