Case Name: Armin Bencoe and Julius Steinitz, Copartners, Doing Business as A. Bencoe, Plaintiffs, v. Harry C. Christianson and William E. MacNaughton, Copartners, Doing Business as H. C. Christianson & Company, Defendants
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1920-03-05
Citations: 191 A.D. 99
Docket Number: 
Parties: Armin Bencoe and Julius Steinitz, Copartners, Doing Business as A. Bencoe, Plaintiffs, v. Harry C. Christianson and William E. MacNaughton, Copartners, Doing Business as H. C. Christianson & Company, Defendants.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 191
Pages: 99–105

Head Matter:
Armin Bencoe and Julius Steinitz, Copartners, Doing Business as A. Bencoe, Plaintiffs, v. Harry C. Christianson and William E. MacNaughton, Copartners, Doing Business as H. C. Christianson & Company, Defendants.
First Department,
March 5, 1920.
Sales — contract for sale of refined sugar for export with delivery to be made free on board steamer — refusal of seller to deliver to warehouse not breach of contract.
It does not constitute a breach of a contract for the sale of refined sugar for export, where the raw sugar was imported in bond, and delivery was to be made free on board steamer, for the seller to refuse to deliver the sugar to a warehouse, where in consideration of the seller passing the Custom House entry and carrying the drawback the buyer agreed to furnish the Custom House bill of lading and landing certificate free of charge, for the contract could only be satisfied by a delivery on board ship for export, and, as the provisions were not solely for the benefit of the buyer, he could not waive them and direct delivery to be made to a warehouse; the seller could not be compelled to forego his contract right and accept the assurance of the buyer that he would thereafter export the sugar.
A provision in the contract that if the seller should be unable to collect the drawback through any neglect on the buyer’s part to fulfill the agreement the buyer would reimburse the seller, did not authorize the buyer to change the place of delivery, for that provision would not protect the seller as to the drawback if the sugar, through no fault of the buyer, should be destroyed while in the warehouse.
Smith, J., dissents, with opinion.
Motion by the plaintiffs, Armin Bencoe and another, for a new trial upon a case containing exceptions, ordered to be heard at the Appellate Division in the first instance after the dismissal of the complaint and the denial of a motion of the plaintiffs to go to the jury at the close of the plaintiffs’ case, upon a trial before the court and a jury at the New York Trial Term in October, 1918.
Herbert C. Smyth of counsel [Ralph W. Thomas with him on the brief; Wellman, Smyth & Scofield, attorneys], for the motion.
Leo Levy of counsel [Lillian B. Dribben with him on the brief] opposed.

Opinion:
Page, J. :
Mr. Justice Smith sufficiently states the facts in this case.
The contract was clearly for the sale of refined sugar for export, delivery to be made free on board steamer in New York; terms net cash payable on presentation of shipping documents. In consideration of the seller passing the Custom House entry and carrying the drawback, the buyer agreed to furnish Custom House bill of lading and landing certificate free of charge. These express provisions of the contract could only be satisfied by the delivery of the sugar on board ship for export. Nor could the buyers waive these provisions and direct delivery to be made to a warehouse, for they were not solely for the benefit of the buyers, as was the case with the provisions in the contract in the case of Lekas & Drivas v. Schwill & Co. (187 App. Div. 486), which held that they could be so waived. The raw sugar had been imported in bond. On exportation the import duty would be paid back to the sellers on production of the Custom House bill of lading and the certificate of landing in the foreign port. The sellers could not be compelled to forego their contract right and accept the assurance of the buyers that they would thereafter export. The buyers contend that the sellers would have redress against them under the clause of the contract which provides: " If the seller is unable to collect the drawback, through any neglect on the buyer's part to fulfill the foregoing agreement, buyer agrees to reimburse the seller promptly in full for the amount of said drawback." That clause in my opinion, has reference to neglect on the buyer's part to furnish the Custom House bill of lading and the landing certificate. The seller would not be protected by that clause but would lose the entire drawback if, through no fault of the buyer, the sugar were destroyed in the warehouse. This extra hazard could not be imposed upon the sellers without their consent. The change in the manner of delivery is so substantial as in effect to make a new and different contract.
The exceptions should be overruled, with costs, and judgment ordered for the defendants.
Clarke, P. J., Laughlin and Merrell, JJ., concur; Smith, J., dissents.