Jack L. Inselman & Co., Inc. v. FNB Financial Co.
| Decision Date | 05 May 1977 |
| Citation | 41 N.Y.2d 1078,396 N.Y.S.2d 347 |
| Parties | , 364 N.E.2d 1119 JACK L. INSELMAN & CO., INC., Appellant, v. B FINANCIAL COMPANY, Respondent. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Benedict Ginsberg and Charles E. Ramos, New York City, for appellant.
Joel Salon, New York City, for respondent.
The order of the Appellate Division is affirmed, with costs.
Guilford Industries, a manufacturer of fabric, had a factoring agreement with FNB Financial Company B whereby the latter would guarantee payment of certain accounts receivable owed by purchasers whom it deemed credit worthy. FNB had, accordingly, approved the credit of one such purchaser, plaintiff Jack L. Inselman & Co., up to a maximum of $60,000. The agreement between Guilford and FNB in no way restricted or altered the rights of Guilford to enter into purchase and sale contracts involving credit transactions but merely defined the limits of guarantee imposed by FNB.
Guilford also made certain contracts with Inselman which included, as credit terms, that The contracts specifically defined delivery as "acceptance of goods by common carrier."
During the summer of 1974 Guilford sold and delivered to Inselman various fabrics for the sum of $54,300.18. The invoices were assigned to and guaranteed by FNB as provided in the factoring agreement, and the purchase of these goods depleted the bulk of its line of credit. Additional goods, valued at $76,273.75 were manufactured by Guilford, stored in its warehouse and identified to additional purchase contracts with Inselman. In accordance with the agreement, identification of the goods to the contracts, while in such warehouse storage, obligated Inselman to pay the purchase price even though this occurred prior to actual delivery. FNB, under the terms of its factoring agreement, refused to extend credit approval beyond the initial $60,000 limit. Consequently Guilford refused to deliver these additional goods unless Inselman paid cash, as provided under the terms of their contracts. Inselman unjustifiably insisted on immediate delivery without cash payment, else it would consider the contract canceled, and the demand was properly rejected by Guilford. Subsequently, FNB, under the belief that it had a repurchase agreement with Inselman, bought the goods from Guilford...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Baumgardner v. Bimbo Food Bakeries Distribution, Inc.
...it is axiomatic that there must be a breach of that contract by the other party." Jack L. Inselman & Co. v. FNB Financial Co., 41 N.Y.2d 1078, 1080, 396 N.Y.S.2d 347, 364 N.E.2d 1119 (1977) (emphasis added). Therefore, Baumgardner's intentional interference with contract claim must fail as ......
-
Hartford Fire Ins. v. Federated Dept. Stores
...contract, it is axiomatic that there must be a breach of that contract by the other party," Jack L. Inselman & Co. v. FNB Fin. Co., 41 N.Y.2d 1078, 364 N.E.2d 1119, 396 N.Y.S.2d 347, 349 (1977), and courts repeatedly have dismissed claims of tortious interference with contractual relations ......
-
Granite Partners, L.P. v. Bear, Stearns & Co.
...axiomatic that there must be a breach of that contract by the other party.'") (quoting Jack L. Inselman & Co. v. FNB Fin. Co., 41 N.Y.2d 1078, 1080, 396 N.Y.S.2d 347, 349, 364 N.E.2d 1119, 1120 (1977)). The LAB has failed to adequately allege that any contract between ACM and the Funds was ......
-
Oreman Sales, Inc. v. Matsushita Elec. Corp., Civ. A. No. 90-4947.
...628, 632, 406 N.E.2d 445, 449 (1980)). 27 See Sharma, 699 F.Supp. at 447 (citing Jack L. Inselman & Co. v. FNB Financial Co., 41 N.Y.2d 1078, 1080, 396 N.Y.S.2d 347, 349, 364 N.E.2d 1119, 1120 (1977)). 28 See Northshore Bottling v. C. Schmidt & Sons, 22 N.Y.2d 171, 180, 292 N.Y.S.2d 86, 92-......