Frigaliment Importing Co. v. B.N.S. Intern. Sales Corp.: Difference between revisions
From wikilawschool.net. Wiki Law School does not provide legal advice. For educational purposes only.
Lost Student (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
|subject=Contracts | |subject=Contracts | ||
|appealed_from= | |appealed_from= | ||
|case_treatment=No | |||
|overturned= | |||
|partially_overturned= | |||
|reaffirmed= | |||
|questioned= | |||
|criticized= | |||
|distinguished= | |||
|cited= | |||
|followed= | |||
|related= | |||
|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. | |||
|procedural_history= | |||
|issues=Is the contract enforceable, even though the two parties were thinking different things? | |||
|arguments= | |||
|holding=Yes, contract is still enforceable. | |||
|judgment=For the defendant. | |||
|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. | |||
|rule= | |||
|comments= | |||
|case_text_links={{Infobox Case Brief/Case Text Link | |||
|link=https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/190/116/1622834/ | |||
|case_text_source=Justia | |||
}} | |||
|Court_opinion_parts={{Court opinion part | |Court_opinion_parts={{Court opinion part | ||
|opinion_type= | |opinion_type= | ||
|written_by=Friendly | |written_by=Friendly | ||
|joined_by= | |joined_by= | ||
}} | }} | ||
}} | }} | ||
Revision as of 00:54, September 13, 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 |
| Case Opinions | |
| 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.
Issues
Is the contract enforceable, even though the two parties were thinking different things?
Holding
Yes, contract is still enforceable.
Judgment
For the defendant.
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.
