From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Kemi, Inc. v. Berlitz International, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jun 13, 1996
228 A.D.2d 281 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)

Opinion

June 13, 1996

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Beatrice Shainswit, J.).


The disputed provisions in Articles III and IV of the Asset Purchase Agreement do not specify exclusive remedies for breach of warranties made in Article VII thereof. Moreover, a remedy specified for breach of an individual contract term is not necessarily a remedy for breach of other terms in the contract.

The internal memorandum from defendant, produced by counterclaim defendants on their motion, does not show that the parties contemplated that the matter was settled and that there would be no further writings required ( cf., Condo v. Mulcahy, 88 A.D.2d 497, 500). We have considered counterclaim defendants' remaining arguments and find them to be without merit.

Concur — Rosenberger, J.P., Wallach, Nardelli and Tom, JJ.


Summaries of

Kemi, Inc. v. Berlitz International, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jun 13, 1996
228 A.D.2d 281 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
Case details for

Kemi, Inc. v. Berlitz International, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:KEMI, INC., Appellant and Counterclaim Defendant, v. BERLITZ…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Jun 13, 1996

Citations

228 A.D.2d 281 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
644 N.Y.S.2d 27

Citing Cases

Deutsche Alt-A Securities Mortgage Loan Trust, Series 2006-OA1 ex rel. HSBC Bank, USA, National Association v. DB Structured Products, Inc.

“[A] remedy specified for breach of an individual contract term is not necessarily a remedy for breach of…