Indovision Enterprizes, Inc. v. Cardinal Export Corp.

5 Citing cases

  1. Carovillano v. Sirius XM Radio, Inc.

    23 Civ. 4723 (PAE) (S.D.N.Y. Jul. 18, 2024)

    The Court declines to interpret the contract in a way that would reward breach. See Indovision Enterprizes, Inc. v. Cardinal Export Corp., 354 N.Y.S.2d 113, 115 (1st Dep't 1974), aff'd, 36 N.Y.2d 811 (1975) (“A provision that allows either party by his own breach to excuse his own performance is a commercial absurdity.”)

  2. C.T. Chemicals

    184 A.D.2d 441 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)   Cited 2 times

    court that a triable issue of fact exists as to whether payment was due upon delivery of the first or second lot of the goods given that the parties' controlling contract, plaintiff's January 13, 1987 sales confirmation, expressly made delivery of the two lots severable by providing for shipment in "January/February, 1987", that defendant expressly requested separate deliveries and provided a letter of credit permitting for partial shipment, that the goods were delivered by plaintiff and accepted by defendant and that defendant never paid for or made any arrangements to pay for either lot (see, UCC 2-307). Thus, defendant's failure to open a proper letter of credit to pay for either installment of the shipments constituted a breach of its contract with plaintiff, entitling plaintiff to demand payment for the goods delivered and to withhold the balance of the shipment due under the contract (UCC 2-703 [a]; 2-325 [2]; Indovision Enterprizes v. Cardinal Export Corp., 44 A.D.2d 228, affd 36 N.Y.2d 811; Penn v Valiante, 228 App. Div. 552, affd 255 N.Y. 533). Plaintiff is also entitled to summary judgment on defendant's counterclaims.

  3. Reape v. New York News, Inc.

    122 A.D.2d 29 (N.Y. App. Div. 1986)   Cited 37 times

    However, where a particular interpretation would lead to an absurd result, the courts can reject such a construction in favor of one which would better accord with the reasonable expectations of the parties (see, Sutton v East Riv. Sav. Bank, 55 N.Y.2d 550, 555; Tougher Heating Plumbing Co. v State of New York, 73 A.D.2d 732, 733). While a literal reading of the disputed provision in the parties' agreement supports the plaintiff's principal contention that he was entitled to receive a fee of 24 cents for each copy of the Monday through Saturday issues of the Daily News he delivered to home subscribers in his designated area, rather than receiving a total of 24 cents for the entire six days, such an interpretation would defeat and contravene the purpose of the agreement (see, Indovision Enters. v Cardinal Export Corp., 44 A.D.2d 228, 230, affd 36 N.Y.2d 811). Since the intent of the parties in entering an agreement is a paramount consideration when construing a contract, even the actual words provided therein may be transplanted, supplied or entirely rejected to clarify the meaning of the contract (see, Castellano v State of New York, 43 N.Y.2d 909, 911; Schmidt v Magnetic Head Corp., 97 A.D.2d 151, 157).

  4. Tougher Heating Plumbing v. St. of New York

    73 A.D.2d 732 (N.Y. App. Div. 1979)   Cited 20 times
    Declining the invitation to interpret an ambiguous labor cost saving provision in a construction contract to allow the contractor to recover $100,000 if they performed the contract at a savings of $100,000, but only $500 if they performed at a savings of $101,000

    Therefore, the parties' intention was a question of interpretation properly within the court's jurisdiction (Castellano v. State of New York, supra). It is a fundamental principle that the intention of the parties must be gleaned from all corners of the document (Rentways, Inc. v. O'Neill Milk Cream Co., 308 N.Y. 342, 347), rather than from sentences or clauses viewed in isolation (Williams Press v. State of New York, 37 N.Y.2d 434, 440), and every part of the contract should be interpreted to give effect to its general purpose. Where, as here, a literal construction defeats and contravenes the purpose of the agreement, it should not be so construed (Indovision Enterprizes v. Cardinal Export Corp., 44 A.D.2d 228, affd 36 N.Y.2d 811). Due consideration must be given to the purposes of the parties in making the contract, and a fair and reasonable interpretation consistent with that purpose must guide the courts in enforcing the agreement (Matterof Cromwell Towers Redevelopment Co. v. City of Yonkers, 41 N.Y.2d 1, 6). Moreover, where, as here, a written agreement is ambiguous, resort to extrinsic evidence is permissible (Hartford Acc. Ind. Co. v. Wesolowski, 33 N.Y.2d 169, 172), and the ambiguity should be resolved against the party who prepared the agreement (Rentways, Inc. v. O'Neill Milk Cream Co., supra, p 348), here, the State. The record discloses that the purpose of the modification agreement was to include a labor cost saving incentive provision to induce claimant to hold down labor costs and to take the risk that actual labor costs would exceed the guaranteed maximum of $2,650,000.

  5. YORK HUNTER CONSTR. v GREAT AM. CUSTOM INS. SERV.

    2010 N.Y. Slip Op. 32547 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2010)

    Turning to the merits, although Utica contends that Inman walked off the project and that this "nullified" Inman's contract not only with York Hunter, but also with High-Tech, a breached contract does not render it a nullity. Were this true, then any party to a contract could excuse his own performance by breaching it (Indovision Enterprizes, Inc. v. Cardinal Export Corp., 44 A.D.2d 228 [1st Dept 1974] aff'd 36 N.Y.2d 811).