![]() ![]() It is not sufficient that the note or memorandum may express the terms of a contract. In order to satisfy the requirements of the statute of frauds the written note or memorandum must include all the terms of the completed contract which the parties made. The plaintiffs cannot prevail upon the theory that the writings express a contract, different in its terms and conditions from the contract which the parties entered into. ![]() Another difficulty in the way of accepting this contention is that the plaintiff’s must stand or fall upon the writings. Moreover, the courts below found that the transaction between the parties was set forth in the four letters referred to. ![]() The initial difficulty in the way of accepting this contention is that it leaves out of consideration altogether the defendant’s letter of April 6th, and would have us determine the rights of the parties upon the letters of April 2d and 4th and the defendant’s letter of January 7th and close our eyes entirely to the intervening letter of the defendant on April 6th. The plaintiffs contend that on April 2, 1910, the defendant made an oral offer to the plaintiffs which the plaintiffs accepted in writing on April 4th, and that the contract so made is evidenced by the letter of January 7, 1911, which was signed by the defendant and thus the requirements of the statute of frauds were satisfied. If there was no contract between the parties it necessarily follows that the letters and writings relied upon by the plaintiffs as constituting the note or memorandum which evidenced the contract cannot be held to comply with the requirements of the statute of frauds. The question of law, whether these writings constitute a contract, and, if so, whether they satisfy the provisions of the statute of frauds, survives the unanimous decision of the Appellate Division, and is subject to review by this court. In our discussion of this case we shall assume, without deciding, that Rogers was authorized to represent the defendant in the action which he took. In the court several questions were litigated, viz., whether Rogers had authority to represent the defendant, and whether there was a contract and a sufficient written memorandum of such contract to satisfy the requirements of the statute of frauds. Rogers, who carried on negotiations in behalf of the defendant and signed the letters purporting to come from the defendant, and which will be referred to below. In the transactions between the parties the defendant was represented by one C. The theory of the action is that the defendant agreed to accept and pay for certain rubber which the plaintiffs agreed to sell to it, and that the refusal of the defendant to accept and pay for said rubber caused a breach of that contract. The defendant is a corporation organized under the laws of the state of New York. The plaintiffs are the general partners of the limited partnership of Poel & Arnold. In this action the plaintiff sued to recover damages from this defendant for the breach of an executory contract. The Brunswick website has a thorough list of construction elements specific to Brunswick tables, as well as an archive with diagrams and photographs of its models.Poel v. It has black print on a white background with the Brunswick logo and can be found on the underside of the slate. They sit on top of the legs in the corners of the underside of the table and are held in place with nuts and bolts.Ĭheck for the"Brunswick Certified" slate sticker. On an authentic table, the joints that support the slate table surface will be "dovetail" joints.Ĭheck the legs for the galvanized steel leg plates that Brunswick used to attach the legs to the table. Brunswick tables have strong joints that utilized furniture-making techniques like gluing two pieces of wood with alternating grain. This allows the rail to attach evenly to the slate surface.Ĭheck the table and slate joints. Brunswick tables are made with a machined recessed area on the underside of the cushions where the felt may be stapled down. If the rail is made of joined pieces of wood, it is not authentic.Ĭheck for a recessed area on the underside of the cushions. ![]() Brunswick pool tables were only made with that material. This method will not be an option if the rails are intact.Ĭheck to see if the rails are solid hardwood. These hardened dome washers cling to the underside of the slate and their design is unique to Brunswick pool tables.Ĭheck beneath the felt covering of the rail cushions for labels that will identify the cushions as genuine Brunswick "SuperSpeed" cushions. Look for dome-shaped washers with pointed edges holding the nut plate in place. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |