National City Bank of N.Y. v. Prospect Syndicate

1 Citing case

  1. Pennsylvania Exch. Bank v. Kenmore Fur. Co., Inc.

    279 AD 899 (N.Y. App. Div. 1952)   Cited 2 times

    Defendant was at least entitled to cross-examine its witnesses in an attempt to verify how much the bank knew about the affairs of Thermotemp which it was financing.           Paragraph 6 in this contract may have some force in relieving an assignee of the effects of a breach of contract by the assignor occurring subsequent to its assignment (cf. Presidents&sDirectors of Manhattan Co. v. Monogram Associates, 87 N.Y. S.2d 753, mod. 276 A.D. 766; National City Bank v. Prospect Syndicate, 170 Misc. 611; 2 Williston on Contracts [Rev. ed.], § 432), but it was not designed to cover a contract which has been broken before being assigned. If the clause were applicable to the state of facts adduced here by defendant, it would have the effect of precluding rescission based on facts in existence at the time of the conditional sale, even if plaintiff had notice of them. That cannot have been the intention of the contracting parties. Clauses in contracts are not favored which merely purport to change what would otherwise be the operation of law.