Opinion · New York Court of Appeals

Schenectady Steel Co. v. Bruno Trimpoli General Construction Co.

34 N.Y.2d 939

Type
Opinion
Court
New York Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction
New York
Date
1974-07-11
Topic
commercial

How later courts describe this case

  • buyer’s right to cancel due to untimely performance by steel seller waived but right to later sue for damages could have been retained
  • in case where New York law applied, “plaintiffs cite no New York case law adopting the Restatement [§ 251] position”
  • “By [permitting the contract to continue,] respondent at that time waived its right to cancel for an untimely performance . . . , although it retained its right to seek damages for the delay.”
  • “at common law no such duty to provide adequate assurances existed”

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Schenectady Steel Co. v. Bruno Trimpoli General Construction Co.. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
62 opinions

Memorandum. The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed on the record before us.

We agree with the majority below that once the “ time of the essence ” provision in the contract was waived by the general *941 contractor, performance by the steel supplier within a reasonable time was all that was required. We would not, however, concur with the majority’s reasoning insofar as it is indicated that the “ time of the essence ” element was reimposed; but upon any view of the evidence the lesser standard of reasonable time was not even complied with and we thus find no cause for disturbing the result appealed from. We would further indicate that on the facts of this case it is immaterial whether article 2 of the Uniform Commercial Code applies.

Chief Judge Breitel and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones and Wachtler concur in memorandum; Judges Rabin and Stevens taking no part.

Order affirmed, with costs.