You are here: / Contract Law
,

General Language—“Disposition”—Limited in Scope by More Specific Words—“Sale or Transfer”

The First Department, over a dissent, determined that the rules of contract interpretation did not allow the collection of a “transaction fee” by plaintiff financial advisor with respect to the defendant’s purchase of notes in anticipation of the purchase of a mine.  When the financing for the mine fell through, the defendant sold back the notes in accordance with the purchase agreement with the seller of the notes.  The plaintiff sought a “transaction fee” for that transaction:

…[T]he motion court unreasonably construed the parties’ agreement in arriving at the conclusion that plaintiff was entitled to a “transaction fee” in connection with defendant’s aborted acquisition of a participation interest in the notes. The letter agreement provides that plaintiff is entitled to a “transaction fee” following the consummation or closing of a “transaction,” which it defines as the “sale, transfer or other disposition . . . [of] a portion of the assets, businesses or securities of [defendant].” The acquisition in question was admittedly not a “sale” or “transfer.” Nor can it be considered a “disposition,” as plaintiff contends. The term “disposition” does not appear in isolation in the agreement, but as a catch-all at the end of the phrase “sale, transfer or other disposition.” Thus, under the principle of ejusdem generis, the general language “or other disposition” must be construed as limited in scope by the more specific words “sale” and “transfer” that preceded it … . Miller Tabak + Co LLC v Senetek PLC, 2014 NY Slip Op 04418, 1st Dept 6-17-14

 

A Counteroffer Extinguishes the Initial Offer Which Cannot Be Unilaterally Revived by Subsequent Acceptance

The First Department determined that no binding contract for the sale of real property had been reached after a series of offers and counteroffers.  In the course of the decision, the court noted some of the relevant black letter law:

The record demonstrates that the parties never came to terms and instead proposed a series of offers and counteroffers to which they never mutually agreed. …To enter into a contract, a party must clearly and unequivocally accept the offeror’s terms … . If instead the offeree responds by conditioning acceptance on new or modified terms, that response constitutes both a rejection and a counteroffer which extinguishes the initial offer … . The counteroffer extinguishes the original offer, and thereafter the offeree cannot … unilaterally revive the offer by accepting it … .

…[O]ral acceptance of a written offer can form a binding contract for the sale of real property * * *. Thor Props LLC v Willspring Holdings LLC, 2014 NY Slip Op 04237, 1st Dept 6-12-14

 

,

In the Absence of an Express Agreement that the Plaintiff Was Entitled to a Commission Upon the Sale of Assets by the Principal, the Agreement Created an Exclusive Agency, which Merely Precluded the Principal from Hiring Another Agent, but Did Not Create, in the Agent, an Exclusive Right to Sell

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Lippman, over a dissent, in another case arising from the “toxic debts” crisis, determined that the plaintiff was an exclusive agent for the sale of assets, and was not granted an exclusive right to sell the assets. If plaintiff had been granted an exclusive right to sell, it may have been entitled to a commission when the assets were sold by the principal.  But, since the contract was silent about the plaintiff's right to a commission when the principal sells the assets, plaintiff was granted only an exclusive agency for the sale of the assets and the principal could sell the assets without any obligation to pay a commission to the plaintiff.  The exclusive agency agreement only precluded the principal from hiring another agent:

The distinction between an exclusive agency and an exclusive right to sell is well established in a body of Appellate Division case law … . As stated nearly a century ago, “The general rule is that where an exclusive right of sale is given a broker, the principal cannot make a sale [herself] without becoming liable for the commissions. But where the contract is merely to make the broker the sole agent, the principal may make a sale [herself] without the broker's aid, if such sale is made in good faith and to some purchaser not procured by the broker”… .

Put differently, “[a] broker is entitled to a commission upon the sale of the property by the owner only where the broker has been given the exclusive right to sell; an exclusive agency merely precludes the owner from retaining another broker in the making of the sale” … . We have endorsed this dichotomy implicitly in the past …, and now do so explicitly.

Furthermore, we agree with the case law of the lower courts holding that a contract giving rise to an exclusive right of sale must “clearly and expressly provide[] that a commission is due upon sale by the owner or exclude[] the owner from independently negotiating a sale” … . Requiring an affirmative and unequivocal statement to establish a broker's exclusive right to sell is consistent with the general principle that an owner's freedom to dispose of her own property should not be infringed upon by mere implication. Morpheus Capital Advisors LLC v UBS AG, 2014 NY Slip Op 04112, CtApp 6-10-14

 

, ,

“No Action” Clause In a Trust Indenture Interpreted Narrowly Under Established Principles of Contract Interpretation—The Clause Did Not Preclude Suit By Securityholders Based Upon Their Common Law and Statutory Rights In an Action Stemming from the “Credit Default Swap” Crisis

In an action arising out of the credit default swap crisis, the Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Rivera, determined that a “no action” clause, which imposed restrictions on actions brought by securityholders, must be construed narrowly according to its terms.  The “no action” clause stated in pertinent part:  “Limitations on Suits by Securityholder. No holder of any Security shall have any right by virtue or by availing of any provision of this Indenture to institute any action or proceeding at law or in equity or in bankruptcy or otherwise upon or under or with respect to this Indenture… .”  The “Indentures” were agreements entered into with trustees who served as third party administrators of the issuance of securities.  The Court of Appeals held that the clause related solely to actions “with respect to this Indenture” and did not affect the common law and statutory actions brought by securityholders to enforce their rights:

A trust indenture is a contract, and under New York law “[i]nterpretation of indenture provisions is a matter of basic contract law” … .

In construing a contract we look to its language, for “a written agreement that is complete, clear and unambiguous on its face must be enforced according to the plain meaning of its terms” … . As the case law further establishes, we read a no-action clause to give effect to the precise words and language used, for the clause must be “strictly construed” … .

Applying these well established principles of contract interpretation, and with the understanding that no-action clauses are to be construed strictly and thus read narrowly, we turn to the language of the no-action clause presented by the certified question. The no-action clause here states that no securityholder “shall have any right by virtue or by availing of any provision of this Indenture to institute any action or proceeding at law or in equity or in bankruptcy or otherwise upon or under or with respect to this Indenture . . .”. The clear and unambiguous text of this no-action clause, with its specific reference to the indenture, on its face limits the clause to the contract rights recognized by the indenture agreement itself. Further supporting this construction of the clause is the sole textual reference to securities, which is contained in the clause's provision for a Trustee-initiated suit for a continuing “default in respect of the series of Securities.”[FN11] This part of the no-action clause permits the trustee to sue in its name, after notice by a securityholder of a continuing default and upon approval of the suit by a majority of securityholders. Thus, the clear import of the no-action clause is to leave a securityholder free to [*10]pursue independent claims involving rights not arising from the indenture agreement. Quadrant Structured Prods Co Ltd v Vertin, 2014 NY Slip Op 04114, CtApp 6-10-14

 

,

Conclusory Allegations of Bad Faith in Negotiations Pursuant to a Settlement Agreement Did Not State a Cause of Action

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Read, over a dissent, determined the parties failure to come to an agreement did not give rise to a cause of action.  The negotiations, pursuant to a prior settlement agreement, had come to an impasse which, the Court of Appeals concluded, was not actionable:

It is true, as the concurring Justices in the Appellate Division pointed out, that courts normally give a generous reading to pleadings that are attacked as insufficient on their face. But it is not too much to ask that a pleading filed after more than a decade of back and forth between the parties contain some specific facts supporting the claim of bad faith — not just the bald conclusions, contradicted by the only relevant document referred to, that [defendant] insisted “on terms that conflicted with the Settlement Agreement” and “made a definite and final communication” of its intent to violate its obligations. IDT Corp v Tyco Group SARI, 2014 NY Slip Op 04044, CtApp 6-5-14

 

, , ,

Writing Which Omitted Certain Crucial Terms Was an “Agreement to Agree,” Not an Enforceable Real Estate Sales Contract

The First Department determined that a writing [the September 14 letter] which included some terms of the sale of church property for $15 million constituted an “agreement to agree” and not an enforceable real estate sales contract.  The writing identified the parties, the property, the amount of the downpayment and the price of the property.  At some point after the writing was signed, the defendant property owner told the plaintiff it was negotiating the sale of the property to another and, if the plaintiff wanted to buy, the price would be $17.5 million.  The plaintiff then sued for breach of contract and specific performance.  In finding the writing was not an enforceable real estate sales contract, the court noted that several crucial terms were missing, including the failure to mention the required court-approval of the sale of church property pursuant to the not-for-profit corporation law, and the failure to include details of the escrow agreement:

…[W]e agree with defendant that the September 14 letter did not contain all of the material terms which one would reasonably have expected to be included under the circumstances, rendering the September 14 letter unenforceable. For example, while the September 14 letter contemplated that the down payment would be held in escrow, it failed to identify who the escrow agent would be and left to future negotiations “a reasonably acceptable escrow agreement.” Since “[n];o contract for the sale of real property can be created when a material element of the contemplated bargain has been left for further negotiations,” …, and the details of an escrow arrangement are certainly material, this alone warranted the motion court’s conclusion that the letter was not a contract.

Further, the contemplated transaction was unique, insofar as it was contingent on approval by the court and the Attorney General. While we do not question that defendant was entitled to agree to a sale of the property prior to seeking such approval …, one would expect that an agreement would have contained such material terms as defendant’s duty to seek approval in a diligent manner, and the consequences of a failure to secure such approval. Indeed, it has been held that the contingency created by a condominium association’s right of first refusal is material to an agreement to sell an individual condominium apartment … .  Argent Acquisitions LLC v First Church of Religious Science, 2014 NY Slip Op 04048, 1st Dept 6-5-14

 

Criteria for Setting Aside a Stipulation of Settlement Explained

In finding plaintiff’s motion to vacate a stipulation of settlement was properly denied, the Second Department explained the operative principles:

“Stipulations of settlement are judicially favored, will not lightly be set aside, and are to be enforced with rigor and without a searching examination into their substance’ as long as they are clear, final and the product of mutual accord'” … . A stipulation of settlement may not be set aside except on a showing of fraud, collusion, mistake, or accident … . Yan Ping Liang v Wei Xuan Gao, 2014 NY Slip Op 04003, 2nd Dept 6-4-14

 

Question of Fact Whether Defendant’s Negligence Precluded Her Reliance on the Doctrine of Mutual Mistake to Rescind a Valid Oral Contract

The First Department determined there a question of fact about defendant’s negligence and the related applicability of the doctrine of mutual mistake. The parties orally agreed to share funeral expenses and commence a lost will proceeding based upon the understanding that the original will could not be found.  However, the original will was subsequently found.  The defendant moved to rescind the contract on the basis of mutual mistake and Supreme Court granted the motion.  In reversing, the First Department noted the doctrine of mutual mistake would not be available if defendant were negligent in initially failing to find the will, and a question of fact had been raised about defendant’s negligence in that regard:

Plaintiff met her obligations under the agreement to pay one half of the decedent’s funeral expenses and attorneys fees for the proceeding. Defendant did, as required, commence a lost will proceeding. Both parties thus fulfilled the terms of the oral agreement. It was only less than one month before the hearing on the lost will proceeding was to commence that defendant’s husband found the original will in the same box which defendant had searched prior to entering into the agreement. It was at that point that defendant attempted to abrogate the contract. It is noteworthy that defendant, in her motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint argued that the contract should be rescinded due to a mutual mistake as to the existence of the original will. The question of mutual mistake, therefore, is central to the disposition of this case.

Defendant’s alleged negligence in searching for the original 1991 will, the absence of which formed the basis of the oral agreement to commence a lost will proceeding, is an important factor in determining whether the doctrine of mutual mistake may be invoked to rescind this otherwise valid oral agreement. ” Mistake, to be available in equity, must not have arisen from negligence, where the means of knowledge were easily accessible.'” … . The doctrine of mutual mistake “may not be invoked by a party to avoid the consequences of its own negligence” … . Gitelson v Quinn, 2014 NY Slip Op 03942, 1st Dept 5-3-14

 

, ,

Lack of Standing Defense Waived By Absence from Answer—Objections to Authority to Sign Lease Waived by Ratification of the Signed Documents

The Third Department, in a dispute over what was due and owing under a lease agreement, determined the “lack of standing” defense had been waived by the failure to raise it in the answer, and allegedly unauthorized execution of relevant documents had been ratified:

Initially, defendant claims that plaintiff lacks standing to enforce any obligations created by the lease or confirmation agreement, as it was not a party to either document. We agree with Supreme Court that this claim was waived by defendant’s failure to assert it in the answer (see CPLR 3211 [a]; [3]; [e]…).. Defendant further argues that the confirmation agreement is not legally valid, as it was not signed by plaintiff and … PDC [the original lessor, Provident Development Corporation] had transferred the building to plaintiff prior to executing the confirmation agreement. However, “[a];n unauthorized execution of an instrument affecting the title to land or an interest therein may be ratified by the owner of the land or interest so as to be binding upon him [or her];” … . Such a ratification may be shown by the owner’s failure to timely repudiate the unauthorized actions, or by conduct consistent with an intent to be bound … . Here, plaintiff has never repudiated PDC’s execution of the confirmation agreement; on the contrary, the record reveals that, beginning on the commencement date established by the agreement and continuing through 2011, plaintiff regularly invoiced defendant for payments due at the intervals and in the amounts specified in that agreement and accepted defendant’s resulting payments — thus ratifying the confirmation agreement by accepting benefits due thereunder … . Provident Bay Rd LLC v NYSARC Inc, 2014 NY Slip Op 03895, 3rd Dept 5-29-14

 

,

Criteria for Reformation of a Deed (Removing a Restrictive Covenant) Not Met

The Third Department explained the criteria for reformation of a document, in this case a deed.  The court determined that the plaintiff, who was seeking to have a restrictive covenant removed from a deed, did not demonstrate the criteria for reformation of the deed.  The criteria were described as follows:

“A party seeking reformation must establish, by clear and convincing evidence, that the writing in question was executed under mutual mistake or unilateral mistake coupled with fraud” … . The burden is on the proponent of reformation to establish, by clear and convincing evidence, that the relief is warranted … .

Here, it is undisputed that the deed’s restrictive covenant was not set forth in the contract of sale and Salenger testified that he first became aware of it when he received the deed after the closing. Thus, plaintiff established the existence of a unilateral mistake regarding whether the restrictive covenant was intended to be included as a condition of the sale. Nonetheless, plaintiff’s proof fell short of establishing fraud on decedent’s part, which requires “‘a misrepresentation that is false and that the defendant knows is false, made to induce the other party to rely on it, justifiable reliance on the misrepresentation by the other party, and injury'” … . Timber Rattlesnake LLC v Devine, 2014 NY Slip Op 03718, 3rd Dept 5-22-14

 

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