Texaco, Inc. v. Goldstein

CourtNew York City Municipal Court
Writing for the CourtMAURICE WAHL
Citation229 N.Y.S.2d 51,34 Misc.2d 751
PartiesTEXACO, INC., Plaintiff, v. Bernhard GOLDSTEIN, Defendant.
Decision Date18 June 1962

Page 51

229 N.Y.S.2d 51
34 Misc.2d 751
TEXACO, INC., Plaintiff,
v.
Bernhard GOLDSTEIN, Defendant.
Municipal Court of City of New York, Borough of Manhattan,
Fourth District.
June 18, 1962.

Page 52

[34 Misc.2d 752] Northrop & Jessop, New York City, for plaintiff (by Harry L. Jessop, New York City).

Lehmann & Glenn, New York City, for defendant (by Arnold B. Glenn, New York City).

MAURICE WAHL, Justice.

The plaintiff seeks to recover a judgment against the defendant predicated upon purchases made pursuant to the terms and conditions of a credit card issued by the plaintiff to the defendant on or about June 11, 1959.

The plaintiff is a major oil company engaged in the production and distribution of petroleum and related products throughout the United States. Dealers operating gas stations and engaged in private enterprise, retail the petroleum products of the plaintiff in the operation of their stations and by means of dealer agreements with the plaintiff are authorized to vend products of the plaintiff.

Texaco, Inc., as a device to stimulate sales, issued a credit card enabling the holder to purchase its products at any authorized Texaco station. The practice is that the party to whom the card issues thereafter receives a monthly statement covering all purchases made in prior months.

The credit card issued by the plaintiff is made of plastic and measures 3 3/8th inches by 2 1/3 inches. Plaintiff's name appears conspicuously upon the face of the card and the name of the customer appears embossed on the face of the card in prominent raised letters .

The face of the card also contains a signature block in which the customer is to sign his name. Directly above the customer's signature block, the words 'Issued subject to conditions on reverse side, Texaco, Inc.' are inscribed.

Page 53

On the reverse side of the card the agreement between the customer and the company is contained and the relevant portion appears as follows:

'This credit card confirms the authorization of credit during the period shown, to the person, corporation or firm whose name is embossed on the reverse side thereof. Such person, corporation or firm assumes full responsibility for all purchases made hereunder by any one through the use of this credit card prior to surrendering it to the company or to giving the company notice in writing that the card has been lost or stolen. Retention of this card or use thereof constitutes acceptance of all the terms and conditions thereof.'

Upon the defendant's application, a card was issued to him by the plaintiff, bearing a certain number with an expiration date of the last day of May, 1961.

Thereafter the defendant was deprived of the card by theft, but failed to report the loss to the plaintiff. A dealer marketing [34 Misc.2d 753] plaintiff's products picked up the card on or about December 23, 1960 at Chicago, Illinois, where it had been tendered by an illicit possessor, for the purpose of purchase of petroleum products. The dealer then notified the plaintiff that the card had been reclaimed, and plaintiff in turn notified the defendant that his card was being used by another in the Chicago area. The plaintiff then confirmed a telephone conversation with the defendant by a letter dated January 23, 1961.

Written communications were received by plaintiff from defendant in connection with the loss of the credit card, but all of said communications were subsequent to the last charge made upon the credit card.

From the date the card was missing to the date of the telephone notification by plaintiff to defendant of its recovery, some $569.98 in charges were made with the said credit card, which charges constitute the subject of this action.

The issues raised here are whether the defendant is liable pursuant to the terms and conditions as set forth on the reverse side of the credit card, for the unauthorized purchases made by another person, prior to notification to the plaintiff by the defendant of the loss of the credit card.

The defendant bases his defense primarily upon the cases: Application of Eimco Corporation, 6 Misc.2d 422, 163 N.Y.S.2d 273, and Union Oil Company of California v. Lull, 220 Or. 412, 349 P.2d 243.

In the case of Eimco Corp., supra, the Court there referred to the holding in Arthur Philip Export Corp. v. Leathertone, Inc., 275 App.Div. 102, 87 N.Y.S.2d 665, which held that a party...

To continue reading

Request your trial
11 practice notes
  • Kane v. Standard Oil Co. of Ky., No. 40338
    • United States
    • United States Court of Appeals (Georgia)
    • 1 d5 Novembro d5 1963
    ...Ark. 362, 186 S.W.2d 790, 158 A.L.R. 754; Magnolia Petroleum Co. v. McMillan, Tex.Civ.App., 168 S.W.2d 881; Texaco, Inc. v. Goldstein, 34 Misc.2d 751, 229 N.Y.S.2d 51; The Tripartite Credit Card Transaction; A Legal Infant, 48 Calif.L.Rev. 459; Credit Cards, 57 NWU L.Rev. 207; Clafin, The C......
  • Goldstein v. Rhode Island Hospital Trust Nat. Bank, No. 1587-A
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Rhode Island
    • 26 d2 Setembro d2 1972
    ...because the contract called for liability until the card was surrendered or its loss reported to the company. Texaco, Inc. v. Goldstein, 34 Misc.2d 751, 229 N.Y.S.2d 51, aff'd, 39 Misc.2d 552, 241 N.Y.S.2d 495 (1963); Union Oil Co. v. Lull, 220 Or. 412, 349 P.2d 243 (1960); Magnolia Petrole......
  • Duke v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., No. 354
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas. Court of Civil Appeals of Texas
    • 17 d4 Outubro d4 1968
    ...tort concept of 'fault.' See Union Oil Company of California v. Lull, 220 Or. Page 923 412, 349 P.2d (1960); Texaco, Inc. v. Goldstein, 34 Misc.2d 751, 229 N.Y.S.2d 51 (Mun.Ct. of N.Y. City, 1962), aff'd. Sup., 241 N.Y.S.2d While the provisions of the underlying 'agreement' and the statemen......
  • Lechmere Tire & Sales Co. v. Burwick
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
    • 4 d2 Janeiro d2 1972
    ...for unauthorized purchases prior to notice to the issuer of loss of the card. See Texaco, Inc. v. Goldstein, 34 Misc.2d (N.Y.) 751, 756, 229 N.Y.S.2d 51 (Mun.Ct., City of New York--general credit card), affd. 39 Misc.2d 552, 241 N.Y.S.2d 495. See also Uni-Serv Corp. v. Vitiello, 53 Misc.2d ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
11 cases
  • Kane v. Standard Oil Co. of Ky., No. 40338
    • United States
    • United States Court of Appeals (Georgia)
    • 1 d5 Novembro d5 1963
    ...Ark. 362, 186 S.W.2d 790, 158 A.L.R. 754; Magnolia Petroleum Co. v. McMillan, Tex.Civ.App., 168 S.W.2d 881; Texaco, Inc. v. Goldstein, 34 Misc.2d 751, 229 N.Y.S.2d 51; The Tripartite Credit Card Transaction; A Legal Infant, 48 Calif.L.Rev. 459; Credit Cards, 57 NWU L.Rev. 207; Clafin, The C......
  • Goldstein v. Rhode Island Hospital Trust Nat. Bank, No. 1587-A
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Rhode Island
    • 26 d2 Setembro d2 1972
    ...because the contract called for liability until the card was surrendered or its loss reported to the company. Texaco, Inc. v. Goldstein, 34 Misc.2d 751, 229 N.Y.S.2d 51, aff'd, 39 Misc.2d 552, 241 N.Y.S.2d 495 (1963); Union Oil Co. v. Lull, 220 Or. 412, 349 P.2d 243 (1960); Magnolia Petrole......
  • Duke v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., No. 354
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas. Court of Civil Appeals of Texas
    • 17 d4 Outubro d4 1968
    ...tort concept of 'fault.' See Union Oil Company of California v. Lull, 220 Or. Page 923 412, 349 P.2d (1960); Texaco, Inc. v. Goldstein, 34 Misc.2d 751, 229 N.Y.S.2d 51 (Mun.Ct. of N.Y. City, 1962), aff'd. Sup., 241 N.Y.S.2d While the provisions of the underlying 'agreement' and the statemen......
  • Lechmere Tire & Sales Co. v. Burwick
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
    • 4 d2 Janeiro d2 1972
    ...for unauthorized purchases prior to notice to the issuer of loss of the card. See Texaco, Inc. v. Goldstein, 34 Misc.2d (N.Y.) 751, 756, 229 N.Y.S.2d 51 (Mun.Ct., City of New York--general credit card), affd. 39 Misc.2d 552, 241 N.Y.S.2d 495. See also Uni-Serv Corp. v. Vitiello, 53 Misc.2d ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT