Court Opinion

ID: 9885587
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-06 13:07:52.948021+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:48:55.208983
License: Public Domain

*396Froesser, J.
(concurring). The courts below have found that defendant agreed to purchase from plaintiff 440,000 pounds of lard. This disposes of the farmer’s contention that it agreed to purchase only 240,000 pounds of lard.
Defendant had signed two written confirmation orders for 240,000 pounds, retained the third confirmation order for the last 200,000 pounds signed by plaintiff, and exhibited to plaintiff’s representatives a written application for a letter of credit which “ covered 440,000 pounds of lard as one contract.” Thereafter, when the price of lard dropped substantially, and discussions between the parties ensued, defendant’s attorney informed plaintiff’s representative that “ unless he was given a release for this 200,000 pounds he was going to advise [his client] not to accept any part of the 440,000 pounds.” He was told that plaintiff “ couldn’t under any circumstances allow any such cancellations, and that [plaintiff] would certainly not sign any release of any nature.” Notwithstanding the foregoing, defendant thereupon accepted, received and paid for 240,000 pounds of lard, and the only agreement to which this payment could have been referable is the one which the trial court found was made.
Had defendant refused to take any of the lard, o's its lawyer threatened, plaintiff would have had no case; defendant having accepted, received and paid for over half the quantity of lard which it agreed to purchase from plaintiff, the trial court was warranted in finding that defendant had breached or “ welshed ” on the agreement to purchase 440,000 pounds of lard. If a “ buyer shall accept part of the goods * * * contracted to be sold * * * and actually receive the same, or give something * * * in part payment ”, as did defendant under the circumstances here disclosed, and can nevertheless escape liability, section 85 of the Personal Property Law would be meaningless.
Inasmuch as the Appellate Division has unanimously affirmed the trial court, we have no alternative but to affirm. I concur in Judge Desmond’s opinion for affirmance.