Miller v. Benjamin
| Decision Date | 05 June 1894 |
| Parties | MILLER et al. v. BENJAMIN et al. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from supreme court, general term, second department.
Action by William H. Miller and others against Edward Benjamin and another to recover damages for breach of contract. From a judgment of the general term affirming a judgment of the superior court in plaintiffs' favor, defendants appeal. Affirmed.
Albridge C. Smith, for appellants.
R. B.
R. B. Gwillim, for respondents.
The plaintiffs have recovered upon an executory contract made by them with the defendants on the 15th of March, 1889, whereby the defendants agreed to purchase, and the plaintiffs to sell to them, 100,000 pounds of slit steel, of a certain grade and quality, to be delivered thereafter, at the rate of about 12,500 pounds per month, from May 1, 1889, to January 1, 1890; specifications for each month's deliveries to be given by the defendants to the plaintiffs, in each case, during the first week of the month preceding. The defendants were to use the steel in the manufacture of dress extenders worn by ladies, and which were in fashion when the contract was made, but, as the proof tended to show, went out of fashion that summer. The plaintiffs, in order to be prepared to fill the contract, contracted for the steel abroad, to be delivered to them from time to time as the contract required; but, as is claimed, by reason of the defendants' refusal to accept delivery, it accumulated on their hands, and they were obliged to carry it. About 27,000 pounds of the steel was delivered. About three months after the execution of the contract, complaint was made by the plaintiffs that the defendants failed to send the specifications, to enable them to deliver; and in the latter part of August, 1889, the defendants wrote to the plaintiffs to cancel the order or contract, giving as a reason for this action on their part that the plaintiffs persisted in sending them heavier steel than specified in the contract. It seems that the steel had to be prepared and slit in special sizes, in order to meet the defendants' wants, and the grade or quality required was designated in the order as ‘Nos. 27 and 29.’ The judgment was recovered as damages for the nonperformance of this contract on the part of the defendants, and for a small balance claimed to be due to the plaintiffs, and unpaid, on account of the steel delivered. There was some dispute with respect to their balance, which became a question of fact at the trial. The proof tended to show that the defendants failed to furnish the specifications for the monthly delivery of steel, as required by the contract, and the order requesting the contract or orders to be canceled amounted to a refusal on their part to further perform.
The only question of law in the case is raised by the defendants' contention that they were excused from further performance by reason of omissions or mistakes on the part of the plaintiffs, in sending heavier steel than was called for by the specifications. The numbers specified in the contract were intended to designate the weight or thickness of the slit steel, according to the usages of the trade. The proof tended to show that it was a fact well known and understood in the trade that it is very difficult, if not impossible, to get cold steel rolled...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Carco Group, Inc. v. Maconachy
...to accomplish." Cablevision Sys. Corp. v. Town of East Hampton, 862 F.Supp. 875, 885 (E.D.N.Y.1994) (citing Miller v. Benjamin, 142 N.Y. 613, 617, 37 N.E. 631 (N.Y. 1894)). Put another way, "for a breach of a contract to be material, it must `go to the root of the agreement between the part......
-
Cablevision Systems Corp. v. Town of East Hampton, CV-93-4536 (DRH).
...or have been so essential as substantially to defeat the object that the parties intended to accomplish. Miller v. Benjamin, 142 N.Y. 613, 617, 37 N.E. 631 (Ct.App.1894). Moreover, "the right of a party to enforce a contract will not be forfeited or lost by reason of technical, inadvertent,......
-
Jacob & Youngs, Inc. v. Kent
...Eastern Forge Co. v. Corbin, 182 Mass. 590, 592, 66 N. E. 419; Robinson v. Mollett, L. R., 7 Eng. & Ir. App. 802, 814; Miller v. Benjamin, 142 N. Y. 613, 37 N. E. 631. Considerations partly of justice and partly of presumable intention are to tell us whether this or that promise shall be pl......
-
NCAS Realty Management Corp. v. National Corp. for Housing Partnerships
...Lanvin Inc. v. Colonia, Inc., 739 F.Supp. 182, 195 (S.D.N.Y.1990) (involving licensing agreement to sell perfumes); Miller v. Benjamin, 142 N.Y. 613, 617, 37 N.E. 631 (1894) (involving contract to sell slit steel). New York case law makes it evident that partners are held to a higher standa......