You are here: / Contract Law
,

PUBLICITY AGENT FOR A BROADWAY SHOW BREACHED THE COVENENT OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING BY SENDING EMAILS TO AN INVESTOR DESIGNED TO SINK THE PRODUCTION.

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Friedman, determined a publicity agent for a broadway show breached the covenant of good faith and fair dealing implicit in the agent’s contract with the show’s producer. The agent, Thibodeau, sent emails to an investor which were intended to sink the project, and the investor pulled out. The defamation and tortious interference causes of action will go to trial. But the breach of contract cause of action was demonstrated as a matter of law. The plaintiff is a limited partnership formed to put on the show, RBLP:

The record establishes that Thibodeau, without RBLP’s authorization, and using confidential information he had obtained as a result of his employment as RBLP’s press representative, sent an email directly to Runsdorf, a key potential investor who had desired to remain anonymous, causing Runsdorf to withdraw his financial commitment, all of which resulted in the cancellation of rehearsals and the play’s failure to open. Even assuming that his conduct did not violate the express terms of his agreement to act as the play’s press representative, Thibodeau breached the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing by essentially defeating the purpose of the agreement by his actions … . Thibodeau was hired by RBLP to use his public relations skills to facilitate the production of a play; his actions, in which he made use of confidential information that RBLP had entrusted to him in the course of his employment, made it impossible for RBLP to produce the play as planned. It is difficult to imagine a plainer case of a party to a contract utterly defeating the purpose for which the other party had entered into that contract, or a more blatant example of an agent’s disloyalty to his principal .. . Rebecca Broadway L.P. v Hotton, 2016 NY Slip Op 05839, 1st Dept 8-18-16

CONTRACT LAW (PUBLICITY AGENT FOR A BROADWAY SHOW BREACHED THE COVENENT OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING BY SENDING EMAILS TO AN INVESTOR DESIGNED TO SINK THE PRODUCTION)/COVENANT OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING (PUBLICITY AGENT FOR A BROADWAY SHOW BREACHED THE COVENENT OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING BY SENDING EMAILS TO AN INVESTOR DESIGNED TO SINK THE PRODUCTION)/DEFAMATION (PUBLICITY AGENT FOR A BROADWAY SHOW BREACHED THE COVENENT OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING BY SENDING EMAILS TO AN INVESTOR DESIGNED TO SINK THE PRODUCTION)/TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH CONTRACT (PUBLICITY AGENT FOR A BROADWAY SHOW BREACHED THE COVENENT OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING BY SENDING EMAILS TO AN INVESTOR DESIGNED TO SINK THE PRODUCTION)

, ,

IN THIS ACTION STEMMING FROM DEFECTIVE RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE BACKED SECURITIES, MORGAN STANLEY’S ALLEGED FAILURE TO NOTIFY PLAINTIFF OF THE DISCOVERY OF DEFECTIVE SECURITIES IS AN INDEPENDENT BREACH OF CONTRACT; GROSS NEGLIGENCE CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED DESPITE SOLE REMEDY CONTRACTUAL PROVISION.

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Gische, in an action stemming from the sale of defective residential mortgage backed securities, determined defendant’s (Morgan Stanley’s) alleged failure to notify plaintiff of the discovery of defective securities constituted an independent breach of contract claim. The First Department further determined, despite the purported “sole remedy” contractual provision, the cause of action for gross negligence was adequately pled and should not have been dismissed:

… [U]nder similar RMBS agreements, a seller’s failure to provide the trustee with notice of material breaches it discovers in the underlying loans states an independently breached contractual obligation, allowing a plaintiff to pursue separate damages … .

… Where parties contractually agree to a limitation on liability, that provision is enforceable, even against claims of a party’s own ordinary negligence … . The purpose of provisions that limit liability or remedies available in the event of breach is to “allocat[e] the risk of economic loss in the event that the contemplated transaction is not fully executed” … . Courts will generally honor the remedies that the parties have contractually agreed to … . There are exceptions to this rule of law, however, and as a matter of long standing public policy, a party may not insulate itself from damages caused by its “grossly negligent conduct” … . Used in this context, “gross negligence” differs in kind, and not only degree, from claims of ordinary negligence. “It is conduct that evinces a reckless disregard for the rights of others or smacks’ of intentional wrongdoing” … . Morgan Stanley Mtge. Loan Trust 2006-13ARX v Morgan Stanley Mtge. Capital Holdings LLC, 2016 NY Slip Op 05781, 1st Dept 8-11-16

CONTRACT LAW (IN THIS ACTION STEMMING FROM DEFECTIVE RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE BACKED SECURITIES, MORGAN STANLEY’S ALLEGED FAILURE TO NOTIFY PLAINTIFF OF THE DISCOVERY OF DEFECTIVE SECURITIES IS AN INDEPENDENT BREACH OF CONTRACT; GROSS NEGLIGENCE CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED DESPITE SOLE REMEDY CONTRACTUAL PROVISION)/SECURITIES (IN THIS ACTION STEMMING FROM DEFECTIVE RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE BACKED SECURITIES, MORGAN STANLEY’S ALLEGED FAILURE TO NOTIFY PLAINTIFF OF THE DISCOVERY OF DEFECTIVE SECURITIES IS AN INDEPENDENT BREACH OF CONTRACT; GROSS NEGLIGENCE CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED DESPITE SOLE REMEDY CONTRACTUAL PROVISION)/NEGLIGENCE  (IN THIS ACTION STEMMING FROM DEFECTIVE RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE BACKED SECURITIES, MORGAN STANLEY’S ALLEGED FAILURE TO NOTIFY PLAINTIFF OF THE DISCOVERY OF DEFECTIVE SECURITIES IS AN INDEPENDENT BREACH OF CONTRACT; GROSS NEGLIGENCE CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED DESPITE SOLE REMEDY CONTRACTUAL PROVISION)/GROSS NEGLIGENCE (IN THIS ACTION STEMMING FROM DEFECTIVE RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE BACKED SECURITIES, MORGAN STANLEY’S ALLEGED FAILURE TO NOTIFY PLAINTIFF OF THE DISCOVERY OF DEFECTIVE SECURITIES IS AN INDEPENDENT BREACH OF CONTRACT; GROSS NEGLIGENCE CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED DESPITE SOLE REMEDY CONTRACTUAL PROVISION)/RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE BACKED SECURITIES (IN THIS ACTION STEMMING FROM DEFECTIVE RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE BACKED SECURITIES, MORGAN STANLEY’S ALLEGED FAILURE TO NOTIFY PLAINTIFF OF THE DISCOVERY OF DEFECTIVE SECURITIES IS AN INDEPENDENT BREACH OF CONTRACT; GROSS NEGLIGENCE CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED DESPITE SOLE REMEDY CONTRACTUAL PROVISION

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)

,

CONTRACT PROVISION WHICH PURPORTED TO EXTEND THE ACCRUAL OF BREACH OF CONTRACT CAUSES OF ACTION STEMMING FROM SALE OF RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE BACKED SECURITIES DEEMED UNENFORCEABLE AS AGAINST PUBLIC POLICY; ACTION TIME-BARRED.

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Acosta, determined breach of contract causes of action stemming from contracts for the sale of defective residential mortgage backed securities were time-barred. The court rejected as against public policy contractual provisions which purported to extend the accrual of the causes of action:

In this appeal, we must decide whether the statute of limitations bars a breach of contract action that was brought more than six years after the seller made allegedly false representations and warranties as to loans underlying residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS). We find that dismissal of the action is mandated by the Court of Appeals’ decision in ACE Sec. Corp., Home Equity Loan Trust, Series 2006-SL2 v DB Structured Prods., Inc. (25 NY3d 581 [2015]), which sets forth a clear rule that a breach of contract claim in an RMBS put-back action accrues on the date the allegedly false representations and warranties were made. Notwithstanding the parties’ sophistication and their assent to a contract provision specifying a set of conditions that would have delayed the cause of action’s accrual, we find that the accrual provision is unenforceable as against public policy, because it is tantamount to extending the statute of limitations based on an imprecise “discovery” rule, which the Court of Appeals has consistently rejected in the commercial sphere … . Moreover, the accrual provision does not compel defendant to undertake a promised future performance, separate from its obligations to cure or repurchase defective loans, so as to trigger the statute of limitations anew; nor does it contemplate a substantive condition precedent to defendant’s performance that would delay accrual of the breach of contract claim … . Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Flagstar Capital Mkts. Corp., 2016 NY Slip Op 05780, 1st Dept 8-11-16

CIVIL PROCEDURE (STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, CONTRACT PROVISION WHICH PURPORTED TO EXTEND THE ACCRUAL OF BREACH OF CONTRACT CAUSES OF ACTION STEMMING FROM SALE OF RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE BACKED SECURITIES DEEMED UNENFORCEABLE AS AGAINST PUBLIC POLICY; ACTION TIME-BARRED)/STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS (CONTRACT PROVISION WHICH PURPORTED TO EXTEND THE ACCRUAL OF BREACH OF CONTRACT CAUSES OF ACTION STEMMING FROM SALE OF RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE BACKED SECURITIES DEEMED UNENFORCEABLE AS AGAINST PUBLIC POLICY; ACTION TIME-BARRED)/SECURITIES (RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE BACKED SECURITIES, CONTRACT PROVISION WHICH PURPORTED TO EXTEND THE ACCRUAL OF BREACH OF CONTRACT CAUSES OF ACTION STEMMING FROM SALE OF RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE BACKED SECURITIES DEEMED UNENFORCEABLE AS AGAINST PUBLIC POLICY; ACTION TIME-BARRED)/RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE BACKED SECURITIES (STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, CONTRACT PROVISION WHICH PURPORTED TO EXTEND THE ACCRUAL OF BREACH OF CONTRACT CAUSES OF ACTION STEMMING FROM SALE OF RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE BACKED SECURITIES DEEMED UNENFORCEABLE AS AGAINST PUBLIC POLICY; ACTION TIME-BARRED)

,

NONSIGNATORY WHICH RECEIVED A DIRECT BENEFIT FROM AN AGREEMENT WITH AN ARBITRATION PROVISION IS SUBJECT TO ARBITRATION (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined defendant, Gordon, was entitled to compel arbitration with an entity which was not a party to the document with the arbitration provision. Plaintiff, BGC Notes, loaned $700,000 to Gordon as part of an employment arrangement with another related entity, BGC Financial. The employment agreement contained the arbitration clause and the note for the loan required resolution of any disputes in the courts. Although BGC Notes was not was not a party to the employment agreement, it was deemed to receive a direct benefit from the employment agreement. Therefore BGC Notes was subject to the arbitration clause in the agreement:

Although BGC Notes was not a signatory to the employment agreement, which is the document actually containing the arbitration provision, BGC Notes nonetheless received a “direct benefit” directly traceable to the employment agreement … . Specifically, section 3(d) of the employment agreement provides that BGC Financial would “cause” BGC Notes to make a loan to Gordon by way of the very note that BGC Notes sues upon in this action, and BGC Notes received all the benefits that an entity ordinarily receives upon the giving of a loan … . Thus, BGC Notes derived benefits from the employment agreement, and BGC Notes’ contention that section 3(d) conferred a benefit only to Gordon, and at most an “indirect” benefit to BGC Notes itself, belies the terms of the employment agreement … . BGC Notes, LLC v Gordon, 2016 NY Slip Op 05775, 1st Dept 8-11-16

ARBITRATION (NONSIGNATORY WHICH RECEIVED A DIRECT BENEFIT FROM AN AGREEMENT WITH AN ARBITRATION PROVISION IS SUBJECT TO ARBITRATION)/CONTRACT LAW (ARBITRATION, NONSIGNATORY WHICH RECEIVED A DIRECT BENEFIT FROM AN AGREEMENT WITH AN ARBITRATION PROVISION IS SUBJECT TO ARBITRATION)

,

AGREEMENT TO AGREE UNENFORCEABLE UNDER BREACH OF CONTRACT, BREACH OF COVENANT OF GOOD FAITH, PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL AND FRAUD THEORIES. 

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the letter of intent constituted merely “an agreement to agree” which could not support breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, promissory estoppel or fraud causes of action:

 

The letter of intent provided that parties “shall negotiate to arrive at mutually acceptable Definitive Agreements” regarding the potential joint venture and loan. The letter of intent further provided that the parties “each reserve the right to withdraw from further negotiations at any time if, in the sole judgment of either or both, it is in either Party’s best interest to do so, without further liability or obligation to the other.” * * *

The Supreme Court should have granted the defendants’ motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a) to dismiss the complaint, as documentary evidence, in the form of the letter of intent, utterly refuted the plaintiff’s factual allegations, thereby conclusively establishing a defense as a matter of law … . ” [I]t is rightfully well settled in the common law of contracts in this State that a mere agreement to agree, in which a material term is left for future negotiations, is unenforceable'” … . Here, the letter of intent demonstrated that the plaintiff’s allegations of breach of contract related to a mere agreement to agree … . Further, causes of action sounding in promissory estoppel and fraud require reasonable reliance on an alleged promise or misrepresentation … . Here, in light of the language of the letter of intent, any reliance on the defendants’ alleged promises and representations would, as a matter of law, have been unreasonable … . Finally, the language of the letter of intent utterly refuted the plaintiff’s allegations regarding an alleged breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing … . New York Military Academy v NewOpen Group, 2016 NY Slip Op 05706, 2nd Dept 8-3-16

 

CONTRACT LAW (AGREEMENT TO AGREE UNENFORCEABLE UNDER BREACH OF CONTRACT, BREACH OF COVENANT OF GOOD FAITH, PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL AND FRAUD THEORIES)/AGREEMENT TO AGREE (AGREEMENT TO AGREE UNENFORCEABLE UNDER BREACH OF CONTRACT, BREACH OF COVENANT OF GOOD FAITH, PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL AND FRAUD THEORIES)/LETTER OF INTENT (AGREEMENT TO AGREE UNENFORCEABLE UNDER BREACH OF CONTRACT, BREACH OF COVENANT OF GOOD FAITH, PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL AND FRAUD THEORIES)/COVENANT OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING (AGREEMENT TO AGREE UNENFORCEABLE UNDER BREACH OF CONTRACT, BREACH OF COVENANT OF GOOD FAITH, PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL AND FRAUD THEORIES)/PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL (AGREEMENT TO AGREE UNENFORCEABLE UNDER BREACH OF CONTRACT, BREACH OF COVENANT OF GOOD FAITH, PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL AND FRAUD THEORIES)/FRAUD (AGREEMENT TO AGREE UNENFORCEABLE UNDER BREACH OF CONTRACT, BREACH OF COVENANT OF GOOD FAITH, PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL AND FRAUD THEORIES)

,

REVIEW CRITERIA FOR A SMALL CLAIMS RULING EXPLAINED; SMALL CLAIMS FINDING THAT A CONTRACT WAS UNENFORCEABLE AS UNCONSCIONABLE UPHELD.

Reversing the Appellate Term, the Second Department explained the review criteria for a Small Claims Court (District Court) ruling. The Second Department upheld the Small Claims determination a contract was unenforceable as unconscionable:

An appeal from a small claims judgment is permitted “on the sole ground that substantial justice has not been done between the parties according to the rules and principles of substantive law” (Uniform Dist Ct Act § 1807). ” Accordingly, a small claims judgment may not be overturned simply because the determination appealed from involves an arguable point on which an appellate court may differ; the deviation from substantive law must be readily apparent and the court’s determination clearly erroneous'” … .

Here, the District Court’s determination that the subject contract was unenforceable according to its literal terms because it was unconscionable was not clearly erroneous … . Tranquility Salon & Day Spa, Inc. v Caira, 2016 NY Slip Op 05637, 2nd Dept 7-27-16

 

CONTRACT LAW (REVIEW CRITERIA FOR A SMALL CLAIMS RULING EXPLAINED; SMALL CLAIMS FINDING THAT A CONTRACT WAS UNENFORCEABLE AS UNCONSCIONABLE UPHELD)/APPEALS (SMALL CLAIMS, CRITERIA FOR A SMALL CLAIMS RULING EXPLAINED; SMALL CLAIMS FINDING THAT A CONTRACT WAS UNENFORCEABLE AS UNCONSCIONABLE UPHELD)/SMALL CLAIMS (APPEAL, (REVIEW CRITERIA FOR A SMALL CLAIMS RULING EXPLAINED; SMALL CLAIMS FINDING THAT A CONTRACT WAS UNENFORCEABLE AS UNCONSCIONABLE UPHELD)

BOTH BREACH OF CONTRACT AND QUANTUM MERUIT WERE PLED, QUANTUM MERUIT CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE GONE TO THE JURY.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s quantum meruit cause of action should have gone to the jury. A new trial was ordered. Although the complaint was deemed inartfully drafted, the Second Department found that the quantum meruit cause of action was pled and evidence presented at trial supported it. The court explained when both a breach of contract cause of action and a quantum meruit cause of action may be validly pled:

Where the existence of a contract is in dispute, the plaintiff may allege a cause of action to recover in quantum meruit as an alternative to a cause of action alleging breach of contract … . “[A] quasi-contractual obligation is one imposed by law where there has been no agreement or expression of assent, by word or act, on the part of either party involved. The law creates it, regardless of the intention of the parties, to assure a just and equitable result” … .

To be entitled to recover damages under the theory of quantum meruit, a plaintiff must establish: “(1) the performance of services in good faith, (2) the acceptance of services by the person or persons to whom they are rendered, (3) the expectation of compensation therefor, and (4) the reasonable value of the services rendered” … . Thompson v Horowitz, 2016 NY Slip Op 05561, 2nd Dept 7-20-16

 

CONTRACT LAW (BOTH BREACH OF CONTRACT AND QUANTUM MERUIT WERE PLED, QUANTUM MERUIT CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE GONE TO THE JURY)/QUANTUM MERUIT (BOTH BREACH OF CONTRACT AND QUANTUM MERUIT WERE PLED, QUANTUM MERUIT CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE GONE TO THE JURY)

,

SNOW REMOVAL CONTRACTOR NOT LIABLE FOR SLIP AND FALL ON ICE, NO EVIDENCE CONTRACTOR CREATED OR EXACERBATED ICY CONDITION; FAILURE TO APPLY SALT NOT ENOUGH.

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Dillon, resolving a question of first impression in the Second Department, determined a snow-removal contractor could not be held liable for plaintiff’s slip and fall on ice without proof the icy condition was created or exacerbated by the contractor. Here, the contractor had plowed the snow on the same day as the slip and fall. Proof that the area was not salted was deemed insufficient:

We are called upon to determine, for the first time in this judicial department, whether a snow removal contractor may be found liable in a personal injury action under Espinal v Melville Snow Contrs. (98 NY2d 136) on the ground that the snow removal contractor’s passive omissions constituted the launch of a force or instrument of harm, where there is no evidence that the passive conduct created or exacerbated a dangerous condition. We find that liability cannot be imposed under such circumstances. * * *

The trial record is devoid of any evidence regarding the cause, creation, or exacerbation of the icy condition. No evidence was presented as to when the ice first materialized or how long it had been present before the accident. There were no climatology records admitted into evidence regarding the nature of the recent storm, the air temperature prior, during, and after the storm, or potential snowmelt and refreeze. There was no evidence as to when the bullpen was plowed in relation to the time of the plaintiff’s accident, and there was no expert testimony regarding the standard of care that may have been violated if, contractual language aside, no salt or sand/salt mixture were applied under the circumstances present. Moreover, there was no evidence that the icy condition at the bullpen worsened between when it arguably should have been salted and the time of the plaintiff’s accident.

Absent at least some of the foregoing evidence, a determination that the failure to salt created or exacerbated the icy condition … would be speculative. Indeed, a failure to apply salt would ordinarily neither create ice nor exacerbate an icy condition, as the absence of salt would merely prevent a pre-existing ice condition from improving … . Santos v Deanco Servs., Inc., 2016 NY Slip Op 05489, 2nd Dept 7-13-16

 

NEGLIGENCE (SNOW REMOVAL CONTRACTOR NOT LIABLE FOR SLIP AND FALL ON ICE, NO EVIDENCE CONTRACTOR CREATED OR EXACERBATED ICY CONDITION; FAILURE TO APPLY SALT NOT ENOUGH)/CONTRACT LAW (NEGLIGENCE OF CONTRACTOR TO THIRD PARTY, SNOW REMOVAL CONTRACTOR NOT LIABLE FOR SLIP AND FALL ON ICE, NO EVIDENCE CONTRACTOR CREATED OR EXACERBATED ICY CONDITION; FAILURE TO APPLY SALT NOT ENOUGH)/ESPINAL EXCEPTIONS (NEGLIGENCE OF CONTRACTOR TO THIRD PARTY, SNOW REMOVAL CONTRACTOR NOT LIABLE FOR SLIP AND FALL ON ICE, NO EVIDENCE CONTRACTOR CREATED OR EXACERBATED ICY CONDITION; FAILURE TO APPLY SALT NOT ENOUGH)/SLIP AND FALL (SNOW REMOVAL CONTRACTOR NOT LIABLE FOR SLIP AND FALL ON ICE, NO EVIDENCE CONTRACTOR CREATED OR EXACERBATED ICY CONDITION; FAILURE TO APPLY SALT NOT ENOUGH)

ALLEGED ORAL MODIFICATION OF A CONTRACT WHICH REQUIRED WRITTEN NOTICE UNENFORCEABLE.

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the alleged oral modification of a contract which required written notice was not enforceable:

… [I]f an oral modification has not “been acted upon to completion” in a manner that “demonstrate[s], objectively, the nature and extent of the modification” … , it will be enforceable only upon a showing “of either partial performance . . ., which must be unequivocally referable to the oral modification, or equitable estoppel, based upon conduct which is not otherwise compatible with the agreement as written” … . * * *

The performance of the parties under [the] purported [oral] arrangement, in other words, was identical to that required under a renewed sales agreement. It cannot, as a result, be said that “there was [any] performance on [plaintiff’s] part that was unequivocally referable to the existence of an oral contract” … . Likewise, inasmuch as the behavior of the parties was “compatible with the agreement as written,” and given the absence of written notice of nonrenewal, there is no basis for estopping defendant from relying upon the agreement as written … . J. Triple S., Inc. v Aero Star Petroleum, Inc., 2016 NY Slip Op 05414, 3rd Dept 7-7-16

 

CONTRACT LAW (ALLEGED ORAL MODIFICATION OF A CONTRACT WHICH REQUIRED WRITTEN NOTICE UNENFORCEABLE)/MODIFICATION (CONTRACT LAW,  ALLEGED ORAL MODIFICATION OF A CONTRACT WHICH REQUIRED WRITTEN NOTICE UNENFORCEABLE)/ORAL MODIFICATION (CONTRACT LAW,  ALLEGED ORAL MODIFICATION OF A CONTRACT WHICH REQUIRED WRITTEN NOTICE UNENFORCEABLE)

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