Case Name: Bernard Schlenger, Doing Business as Magic Electro Welder Mfg. Company, Appellant, v. 310 Canal Street Corporation et al., Defendants, and Philip Salzman et al., Respondents
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1947-04-18
Citations: 272 A.D.2d 761
Docket Number: 
Parties: Bernard Schlenger, Doing Business as Magic Electro Welder Mfg. Company, Appellant, v. 310 Canal Street Corporation et al., Defendants, and Philip Salzman et al., Respondents.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 272
Pages: 761–761

Head Matter:
Bernard Schlenger, Doing Business as Magic Electro Welder Mfg. Company, Appellant, v. 310 Canal Street Corporation et al., Defendants, and Philip Salzman et al., Respondents.

Opinion:
While the rule is that a memorandum to take a contract of sale out of the operation of the Statute of Frauds must state all the essential terms with reasonable certainty and parol evidence may not be resorted to to supply omissions, parol evidence is admissible to explain any ambiguity (United Press v. New York Press Co., 164 N. Y. 406). Plaintiff here purports to rely on the memorandum with additions as written and asserts that parol evidence is necessary only to explain the meaning of the language employed. We think that plaintiff is entitled to develop his case at the trial within the bounds of the substantive law and rules of evidence rather than have his case determined on a motion for summary judgment. Order and judgment reversed, with costs to the appellant, and the motion denied. Present — Martin, P. J., Glennon, Dore, Cohn and Peck, JJ.; Martin, P. J., and Dore, J., dissent and vote to affirm.