You are here: / / DEFENDANTS’ FAILURE TO INSIST ON PROMISED MONTHLY MINIMUM PURCHASES...

DEFENDANTS’ FAILURE TO INSIST ON PROMISED MONTHLY MINIMUM PURCHASES OF DEFENDANTS’ PRODUCTS CONSTITUTED A WAIVER OF THE CONTRACTUAL MINIMUM PURCHASE REQUIREMENTS, NOTWITHSTANDING A NO ORAL WAIVER CLAUSE.

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Chambers, determined the failure of defendants to insist on the fulfillment of plaintiffs’ promise to make monthly minimum purchases of defendants’ product constituted a waiver of the minimum-purchases contract, notwithstanding the “no oral waiver” contractual provision:

… [W]e find that the Supreme Court properly concluded that … the affirmative conduct of [defendants] over the previous weeks and months evinced an unmistakable intent to waive the remaining 2006 minimum purchase requirements, including the 2006 annual minimum purchase requirement … . * * *

…[W]e agree with the Supreme Court that, under the facts presented, the agreements’ no-oral-waiver provision … does not compel a different result. As explained above, the [plaintiffs’] persistent and repeated failure to meet minimum purchase requirements, coupled with [defendants’] continued acceptance of such conduct without any reservation or protest until a few weeks before the expiration of the agreements (by which time it was, of course, too late to insist upon strict compliance with the terms of the agreements), equitably estops [defendants] from invoking the benefit of the no-oral-waiver provision … . Kamco Supply Corp. v On the Right Track, LLC, 2017 NY Slip Op, 02025, 2nd Dept 3-22-17

 

CONTRACT LAW (DEFENDANTS’ FAILURE TO INSIST ON PROMISED MONTHLY MINIMUM PURCHASES OF DEFENDANTS’ PRODUCTS CONSTITUTED A WAIVER OF THE CONTRACTUAL MINIMUM PURCHASE REQUIREMENTS, NOTWITHSTANDING A NO ORAL WAIVER CLAUSE)/WAIVER (CONTRACT LAW, (DEFENDANTS’ FAILURE TO INSIST ON PROMISED MONTHLY MINIMUM PURCHASES OF DEFENDANTS’ PRODUCTS CONSTITUTED A WAIVER OF THE CONTRACTUAL MINIMUM PURCHASE REQUIREMENTS, NOTWITHSTANDING A NO ORAL WAIVER CLAUSE)

You might also like
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER SMALL TABLE OVER WHICH PLAINTIFF TRIPPED AND FELL WAS OPEN AND OBVIOUS, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT). ​
CEMETERY’S APPLICATION FOR A USE VARIANCE TO CONSTRUCT A CREMATORY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED BY THE ZONING BOARD, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).
Abutting-Property-Owners Not Responsible for Defects in Sidewalk Tree Wells/City Did Not Have Written Notice of Defect in Tree Well Where Plaintiff Fell
PLAINTIFF BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE OF DEFAULT PROVISIONS OF THE MORTGAGE AND THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF REAL PROPERTY ACTIONS AND PROCEEDINGS LAW (RPAPL) 1304; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
Mistake in Name of Party Did Not Warrant Striking Candidate’s Name from Ballot
COURT DID NOT HAVE AUTHORITY TO DISMISS THE ACTION PURSUANT TO CPLR 3216 BECAUSE NO 90-DAY NOTICE HAD BEEN SERVED; DISMISSAL FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH DISCOVERY DEMANDS WAS NOT WARRANTED, BUT PRECLUSION OF FURTHER DISCOVERY WAS APPROPRIATE (SECOND DEPT).
FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED AS UNTIMELY FOR TWO DISTINCT REASONS, THE 2007 COMPLAINT WAS DISMISSED FOR LACK OF STANDING AND THEREFORE DID NOT SERVE TO ACCELERATE THE DEBT, THE SECOND ACTION, BROUGHT BY A SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST, WAS STARTED WITHIN SIX MONTHS OF THE DISMISSAL OF THE INITIAL ACTION AND WAS THEREFORE TIMELY UNDER CPLR 205 [a] (SECOND DEPT).
More than One Possible Cause of Icy Condition Required Grant of Summary Judgment to Defendant

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

GUARANTY WHICH DID NOT HAVE A FORUM SELECTION CLAUSE DEEMED TO BE SUBJECT TO... STATUTE OF FRAUDS (GENERAL OBLIGATIONS LAW) REQUIREMENTS FOR A CONTRACT TO NEGOTIATE...