Case Name: Fred G. Steinhilber et al., Doing Business as Hamilton Specialty Company, Appellants, v. Challenger Steel Products Corp., Respondent
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1959-10-26
Citations: 9 A.D.2d 695
Docket Number: 
Parties: Fred G. Steinhilber et al., Doing Business as Hamilton Specialty Company, Appellants, v. Challenger Steel Products Corp., Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 9
Pages: 695–695

Head Matter:
Fred G. Steinhilber et al., Doing Business as Hamilton Specialty Company, Appellants, v. Challenger Steel Products Corp., Respondent.

Opinion:
In an action to recover damages for breach of contract, the appeal is from an order dismissing the complaint for insufficiency. It is alleged that respondent employed appellants on commission as sole distributor of its products. Order reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements, and motion denied, with $10 costs. Respondent, if so advised, may serve its answer within 10 days after the entry of the order hereon. The contract as pleaded does not lack mutuality. It is instinct with an obligation on the part of appellants to make a reasonable effort to sell the products of respondent, with price and other essential terms to be determined by the manufacturer (Wood v. Duff-Gordon, 222 N. Y. 88). Wenzel, Acting P. J., Beldoek, Murphy, Hallinan and Kleinfeld, JJ., concur.