Frigaliment Importing Co. v. B.N.S. Intern. Sales Corp.: Difference between revisions
Lost Student (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
'''Holding''': Yes, contract is still enforceable | '''Holding''': Yes, contract is still enforceable | ||
'''Reasons''': Defendant was acting in good faith, it sent chickens, which is what the contract called for. Plaintiff had the burden of showing that "chicken" was used in the narrower sense, and did not meet that burden. | '''Reasons''': Defendant was acting in good faith, it sent chickens, which is what the contract called for. Plaintiff had the burden of showing that "chicken" was used in the narrower sense, and did not meet that burden. Thus, subjective intent should be ignored. | ||
'''Judgment''': For the defendant. | '''Judgment''': For the defendant. | ||
Revision as of 19:34, February 1, 2020
| Frigaliment Importing Co. v. B.N.S. Intern. Sales Corp. | |
| Court | U.S.D.C., Southern District of New York |
|---|---|
| Citation | 190 F. Supp. 116 (S.D.N.Y. 1960) |
| Date decided | December 27, 1960 |
|- cellpadding="10" border="1" ! |written by Friendly |- Facts: Plaintiff and Defendant contracted that Defendant would sell 100,000 lbs. of chicken to Plaintiff. When the shipment arrived, Plaintiff complained that the chicken sent were not young chicken, suitable for frying and broiling, but old "fowl," only suitable for stew.
Issue: Is the contract enforceable, even though the two parties were thinking different things?
Holding: Yes, contract is still enforceable
Reasons: Defendant was acting in good faith, it sent chickens, which is what the contract called for. Plaintiff had the burden of showing that "chicken" was used in the narrower sense, and did not meet that burden. Thus, subjective intent should be ignored.
Judgment: For the defendant.
