For Your Data Robert C. Apfel V. Prudential–Bache Securities, Inc. Instance Brief
October 30, 2020
Edit
Robert C. Apfel v. Prudential–Bache Securities, Inc. illustration brief summary
81 N.Y.2d 470, 600 N.Y.S.2d 433, 616 N.E.2d 1095 (N.Y. 1993)
SYNOPSIS:
Plaintiffs, banker as well as lawyer, as well as accused investment depository fiscal establishment sought review of a conclusion past times the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court inwards the First Judicial Department, New York, which modified an lodge of the lower courtroom as well as reinstated a crusade of activeness as well as the allegations of consideration inwards the respond as well as counterclaim, as well as struck plaintiffs' need for punitive damages, inwards plaintiffs' crusade of activeness for breach of contract.
OVERVIEW: Plaintiffs, banker as well as lawyer, sold an thought for issuing as well as selling municipal bonds to accused investment bank. Defendant stopped paying on the contract because it claimed that plaintiffs had no belongings correct inwards the thought because it was non new and, therefore, consideration for the contract was lacking. Plaintiffs filed suit. The supreme courtroom dismissed all claims, exactly the appellate partition modified the lodge past times reinstating defendant's claim that the understanding lacked consideration.
HOLDING:
On appeal, the courtroom affirmed every bit modified. The alteration struck defendant's remaining claim. The courtroom held that a showing of novelty was non required to validate the contract.
ANALYSIS:
-The decisive inquiry was whether the thought had value, non whether it was novel.
-The courtroom ruled that absent fraud or unconscionability, the adequacy of consideration was non a proper patch of written report for judicial scrutiny.
-The courtroom concluded that the transaction was controlled past times the limited understanding of the parties as well as their rights as well as liabilities were to hold upwardly determined exclusively on theories of breach of contract as well as the partial defence of waiver.
OUTCOME: The courtroom held that the appellate courtroom had erred inwards reinstating plaintiffs', banker as well as lawyer's, crusade of action, as well as struck accused investment bank's counterclaims as well as defenses. The courtroom held that the transaction betwixt plaintiffs as well as accused was controlled past times the limited understanding of the parties as well as their rights as well as liabilities were to hold upwardly determined exclusively on theories of breach of contract as well as the partial defence of waiver.
---
Interested inwards learning how to acquire out the altitude grades inwards your constabulary schoolhouse classes? Want to larn how to written report smarter than your competition? Interested inwards transferring to a high ranked school?
81 N.Y.2d 470, 600 N.Y.S.2d 433, 616 N.E.2d 1095 (N.Y. 1993)
SYNOPSIS:
Plaintiffs, banker as well as lawyer, as well as accused investment depository fiscal establishment sought review of a conclusion past times the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court inwards the First Judicial Department, New York, which modified an lodge of the lower courtroom as well as reinstated a crusade of activeness as well as the allegations of consideration inwards the respond as well as counterclaim, as well as struck plaintiffs' need for punitive damages, inwards plaintiffs' crusade of activeness for breach of contract.
OVERVIEW: Plaintiffs, banker as well as lawyer, sold an thought for issuing as well as selling municipal bonds to accused investment bank. Defendant stopped paying on the contract because it claimed that plaintiffs had no belongings correct inwards the thought because it was non new and, therefore, consideration for the contract was lacking. Plaintiffs filed suit. The supreme courtroom dismissed all claims, exactly the appellate partition modified the lodge past times reinstating defendant's claim that the understanding lacked consideration.
HOLDING:
On appeal, the courtroom affirmed every bit modified. The alteration struck defendant's remaining claim. The courtroom held that a showing of novelty was non required to validate the contract.
ANALYSIS:
-The decisive inquiry was whether the thought had value, non whether it was novel.
-The courtroom ruled that absent fraud or unconscionability, the adequacy of consideration was non a proper patch of written report for judicial scrutiny.
-The courtroom concluded that the transaction was controlled past times the limited understanding of the parties as well as their rights as well as liabilities were to hold upwardly determined exclusively on theories of breach of contract as well as the partial defence of waiver.
OUTCOME: The courtroom held that the appellate courtroom had erred inwards reinstating plaintiffs', banker as well as lawyer's, crusade of action, as well as struck accused investment bank's counterclaims as well as defenses. The courtroom held that the transaction betwixt plaintiffs as well as accused was controlled past times the limited understanding of the parties as well as their rights as well as liabilities were to hold upwardly determined exclusively on theories of breach of contract as well as the partial defence of waiver.
---
Interested inwards learning how to acquire out the altitude grades inwards your constabulary schoolhouse classes? Want to larn how to written report smarter than your competition? Interested inwards transferring to a high ranked school?