Furgiele v. DISABLED AMERICAN VETERANS SERV. FOUND.
| Decision Date | 17 December 1952 |
| Citation | 116 F. Supp. 375 |
| Parties | FURGIELE v. DISABLED AMERICAN VETERANS SERVICE FOUNDATION. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
Stanley Faulkner, New York City, for plaintiff.
Procter, Smith & Harding, New York City, for defendant.
Motion for summary judgment by defendant.
This lawsuit has to do with a word puzzle contest run by defendant. The prizes offered to winners were substantial and contestants were required to pay a fee to enter the contest.
Plaintiff did so enter and did pay the required fees and submitted four solutions to the puzzle. Three of them are in dispute.
Plaintiff contends that in each of these three solutions he had the highest mark and that each of his solutions should have been marked with a higher number than that of the winning contestant.
Plaintiff asserts that defendant failed to judge plaintiff's solutions in accord with the rules and instructions of the contest and thereby breached its contract with plaintiff.
In its application for summary judgment defendant has set forth fully and at length the details of the contest, its rules and regulations, plaintiff's solutions and the manner of the solution of the contest. Plaintiff's answering affidavit, it seems to me raises no issue of fact. Practically all it does is to re-assert the language of the complaint that the contest was not decided in accord with the rules and regulations of said contest. In what manner and means the affidavit fails to state.
It does state that defendant was arbitrary in its decision in that it rejected identification of one of the pictures by plaintiff as "Animal" while defendant decided the proper word was "Walrus"; and that plaintiff used the word "Turner" while defendant decided that the proper word was "Wrench." In another, plaintiff suggested the word "Effigy" while defendant decided "Sphinx" was the proper word and again plaintiff suggested the word "Trompe" while defendant decided the proper word was "Cornet."
Plaintiff contends that defendant acted arbitrarily and in violation of the rules of the contest in not accepting plaintiff's suggested words.
Plaintiff fails in his affidavits to back up this contention. Certainly the words selected by defendant are found in the dictionary, stated in the rules as the "final word source authority" and to me the words selected by defendant are not inappropriate.
The mere statement alone that the defendant failed to judge plaintiff's solution of the puzzle...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Johnson v. New York Daily News
...four cases, all on this point (Wassyng v. Disabled American Veterans Service Foundation, 92 F.Supp. 275; Furgiele v. Disabled American Veterans Service Foundation, 116 F.Supp. 375, aff'd. 2 Cir., 207 F.2d 957; Baez v. Disabled American Veterans Service Foundation, 13 F.R.D. 330; and Gillmor......
-
Johnson v. BP Oil Co.
...of fraud or gross mistake implying bad faith, the judging organization's decision is binding); Furgiele v. Disabled American Veterans Service Foundation, 116 F.Supp. 375 (S.D.N.Y.1952), aff'd, 207 F.2d 957 (2d Cir.1953) (plaintiffs were bound by the decision of the committee in the absence ......
-
National Amateur Bowlers, Inc. v. Tassos, Civ. A. No. 88-2370-O.
...Service Foundation, 137 F.Supp. 407, 408 (E.D.N.Y.1954), aff'd, 228 F.2d 958 (2d Cir.1955); Furgiele v. Disabled American Veterans Service Foundation, 116 F.Supp. 375, 376 (S.D.N.Y. 1952), aff'd, 207 F.2d 957 (2d Cir.1953); Baez v. Disabled American Veterans Service Foundation, 13 F.R.D. 33......
-
Mange v. Unicorn Press
...the contest rules. In Wassyng v. Disabled American Veterans, D.C.S.D.N.Y.1950, 92 F.Supp. 2751 and in Furgiele v. Disabled American Veterans, D.C.S.D.N.Y.1952, 116 F. Supp. 375, affirmed Per Curiam, 2 Cir., 1953, 207 F.2d 957, although the plaintiff contended that the defendant had failed t......