Case ID: nys_138/html/1092-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

J. OPPENHEIMER & CO. v. LEHMAN et al.
    (Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department.
    December 16, 1912.)
    Sales (§ 29*)—Consummation of Contbacts—“Obdebs.”
    Written instruments, which were really “orders,” and were signed only by the prospective buyer of the goods, will not create a contract, where not signed by the seller, though denominated on their face contracts.
    [Ed. Note.—Fbr other cases, see Sales, Cent, Dig. § 56; Dec. Dig. § 29.* For other definitions, see Words and Phrases, vqI. 6, pp. 5018-5020.]
    «■For other cases see same topic & § humbek in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep’r Indexes
    Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, First District.
    Action by J. Oppenheimer & against Samuel Lehman and others, copartners, doing business as Lehman Bros. From a judgment for defendants, plaintiff appeals.' Affirmed.
    Argued November term, 1912, before' LEHMAN, PAGE, and HOTCHKISS, JJ.
    
      Walter S. Dryfoos, of New York City, for appellant.
    George A. Ferris, of New York City, for respondents.
   PER CURIAM.

There was no evidence of acceptance by plaintiff of the “orders” (Exhibits A, B, and C). Although denominated on their face as “contracts,” they were not signed by defendants, and were unilateral at the time plaintiff was notified (defendants’ letter November 25th, Exhibit D) that “your ‘orders’ ” are canceled. This letter did not admit the existence of a contract, which, at the same time, it attempted to cancel, but expressly referred to the papers as “orders” merely, a word which does not necessarily imply that the “order” has ripened into a contract.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.