Giumarra v. Harrington Heights
| Decision Date | 20 June 1955 |
| Docket Number | No. A--166,A--166 |
| Citation | 18 N.J. 548,114 A.2d 720 |
| Parties | Charles GLUMARRA, Plaintiff-Petitioner, v. HARRINGTON HEIGHTS, Inc., a corporation of the State of New Jersey, Defendant. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
On appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court, Appellate Division, whose opinion is reported at 33 N.J.Super. 178, 109 A.2d 695.
James A. Major, Hackensack, argued the cause for appellant.
Warren Dixon, Jr., Hackensack, argued the cause for respondent.
The judgment is affirmed for the reasons expressed in the opinion of Judge Goldmann in the Court below.
For affirmance: Chief Justice VANDERBILT and Justices HEHER, JACOBS and BRENNAN--4.
For affirmance on the principal appeal and reversal on the counterclaim: Justices OLIPHANT and BURLING--2.
To continue reading
Request your trial
22 cases
-
Notch View Associates v. Smith
...37 N.J. 114, 130, 179 A.2d 505 (1962); Giumarra v. Harrington Heights, 33 N.J.Super. 178, 190, 109 A.2d 695 (App.Div.1955), aff'd 18 N.J. 548, 114 A.2d 720. And even where the grounds for rescission exist, the remedy is discretionary and will not be granted where the claimant has not acted ......
-
Donovan v. Bachstadt
...A.2d 33 (1961); see also Giumarra v. Harrington Heights, Inc., 33 N.J.Super. 178, 196, 109 A.2d 695 (App.Div.1954), aff'd o.b., 18 N.J. 548, 114 A.2d 720 (1955); E. Farnsworth, Contracts 839 (1982). What that position is depends upon what the parties reasonably expected. It follows that the......
-
Pickett v. Lloyds
...N.J. 251, 254 (1961); see also Giumarra v. Harrington Heights, Inc., 33 N.J.Super. 178, 196, 109 A.2d 695 (App.Div.1954), aff'd o.b., 18 N.J. 548 (1955); E. Farnsworth, Contracts 839 (1982). What that position is depends upon what the parties reasonably expected. It follows that the defenda......
-
Matter of Van Dyk Research Corp.
...proof of the amount of damages. See Giumarra v. Harrington Heights, Inc., 33 N.J.Super. 178, 109 A.2d 695 (App.Div. 1954), aff'd 18 N.J. 548, 114 A.2d 720 (1955). The initial question then must be, did Van Dyk breach its contract to train SCM personnel on the SCM 6740 and on the SCM and Van......
Request a trial to view additional results