You are here: / / THE FACT THAT THE AMOUNT TO BE USED TO CALCULATE DEFENDANT’S COMPENSATION...

THE FACT THAT THE AMOUNT TO BE USED TO CALCULATE DEFENDANT’S COMPENSATION WAS NOT SET IN THE CONTRACT, BUT RATHER WAS TO BE ESTABLISHED AND AGREED TO, DID NOT INVALIDATE THE CONTRACT AS A MERE AGREEMENT TO AGREE; THE AMOUNT COULD BE DETERMINED BY EXTRINSIC INFORMATION.

The Third Department, reversing (modifying Supreme Court) determined a material term of a contract could be adequately fleshed out by extrinsic evidence. Therefore the contract should not have been invalidated as a mere “agreement to agree.” Defendant was hired as a consultant by plaintiff, the parent company of a number of banks, to maximize income from overdrafts. Defendant’s fee was to be based on plaintiff’s income over a “baseline” amount to be established by defendant (and agreed to by plaintiff):

Supreme Court determined that, because the baseline was an indefinite material term, the agreement was unenforceable as a “mere agreement to agree” … . We do not agree. “[W]here it is clear from the language of an agreement that the parties intended to be bound and there exists an objective method for supplying a missing term, the court should endeavor to hold the parties to their bargain. Striking down a contract as indefinite and in essence meaningless is at best a last resort” … . If, “at the time of agreement the parties have manifested their intent to be bound, a price term may be sufficiently definite if the amount can be determined objectively without the need for new expressions by the parties; . . . for example, [the price term might] be . . . ascertained by reference to an extrinsic event” … . Here, the parties’ conduct evinced that they intended to be bound by the agreement and, in our view, the baseline could be ascertained with reference to an extrinsic event, that is, defendant’s calculation derived from the existing historical data … . Accordingly, we find that the agreement was enforceable. Tompkins Fin. Corp. v John M. Floyd & Assoc., Inc., 2016 NY Slip Op 07252, 3rd Dept 11-3-16

CONTRACT LAW (THE FACT THAT THE AMOUNT TO BE USED TO CALCULATE DEFENDANT’S COMPENSATION WAS NOT SET IN THE CONTRACT, BUT RATHER WAS TO BE ESTABLISHED AND AGREED TO LATER, DID NOT INVALIDATE THE CONTRACT AS A MERE AGREEMENT TO AGREE; THE AMOUNT COULD BE DETERMINED BY EXTRINSIC INFORMATION)

You might also like
JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE ALLOWED DEFENDANT TO PLEAD TO A LESSER OFFENSE WITHOUT THE PROSECUTOR’S PERMISSION, HOWEVER NEITHER A WRIT OF PROHIBITION NOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS WAS WARRANTED (THIRD DEPT).
Heroin Upon Which Defendant Overdosed in His Cell Constituted “Dangerous Contraband”—Conviction for Promoting Prison Contraband in the First Degree Was Not Against the Weight of the Evidence
COUNTY COURT DENIED PETITIONER’S MOTION TO DISMISS AN INDICTMENT ON THE GROUND THE PEOPLE HAD LEGALLY SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE INDICTMENT AT THE TIME HE PLED GUILTY TO A PRIOR INDICTMENT (CPL 40.40); PETITIONER’S REMEDY IS DIRECT APPEAL, NOT THE INSTANT ARTICLE 78 PETITION SEEKING PROHIBITION OR MANDAMUS (THIRD DEPT).
DAUGHTER’S PETITION TO BE APPOINTED GUARDIAN FOR HER MOTHER, WHO HAS DEMENTIA AND ALZHEIMER’S, SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED WITHOUT A HEARING (THIRD DEPT).
Law of the Case Doctrine Should Not Have Been Invoked—Criteria Explained
PETITIONER WAS ENTITLED TO A VARIANCE ON FINANCIAL HARDSHIP GROUNDS, REGULATORY TAKING CAUSE OF ACTION WAS NOT RIPE FOR REVIEW (THIRD DEPT).
PETITIONER OPERATED HIS BARBER SHOP OUT OF HIS HOME IN MARCH 2020 AFTER THE GOVERNOR ORDERED BARBER SHOPS CLOSED DUE TO COVID-19; REVOCATION OF PETITIONER’S BARBER LICENSES WAS DEEMED TOO SEVERE A PENALTY; THERE WAS A DISSENT (THIRD DEPT). ​
EASEMENT WHICH ALLOWED ACCESS TO A GARAGE AND WOODSHED WAS EXTINGUISHED, GARAGE AND WOODSHED NO LONGER EXISTED AND HAD NOT EXISTED FOR 50 YEARS (THIRD DEPT).

Categories

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

Copyright © 2023 New York Appellate Digest, LLC
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

PLAINTIFF’S ATTEMPT TO DEMONSTRATE STANDING FAILED BECAUSE THE SUBMITTED... ACCEPTING A VERDICT BEFORE REQUESTED TESTIMONY WAS READ BACK TO THE JURY WAS...