M. DEAN KAUFMAN, INC. v. AMERICAN MACH. FOUNDRY CO, N.J., Judgment, Law, casemine.com

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Attorney(S)

Mr. Albert G. Besser argued the cause for appellant ( Messrs. Hannoch, Weisman, Stern Besser, attorneys; Mr. James J. Shrager on the brief). Mr. William L. Dill, Jr. argued the cause for respondent ( Messrs. Stryker, Tams Dill, attorneys; Mr. William S. Tucker, Jr. on the brief).

Judges

The opinion of the court was delivered PER CURIAM.

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Please sign up to generate summary.

M. DEAN KAUFMAN, INC., ETC., PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. AMERICAN MACHINE ANDFOUNDRY COMPANY, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT, AND TUBOSCOPE COMPANY, ETC.,DEFENDANT.

The opinion of the court was delivered PER CURIAM.

We affirm essentially for the reasons given by the Appellate Division. 102 N.J. Super. 1 ( App. Div. 1968). However, without proof that it is generally recognized in the finder's business or profession that "in contracts of this type, absent specific contractual language to the contrary, there is an implied prerequisite of `authority to offer' which must exist between the candidate and the agent-broker" ( 102 N.J. Super. 9), we are not prepared to agree with that conclusion of the Appellate Division.

Affirmed.

For affirmance — Chief Justice WEINTRAUB and Justices JACOBS, FRANCIS, PROCTOR, HALL, SCHETTINO and HANEMAN — 7.

For reversal — None.

M. DEAN KAUFMAN, INC. v. AMERICAN MACH. FOUNDRY CO

M. DEAN KAUFMAN, INC., ETC., PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. AMERICAN MACHINE ANDFOUNDRY COMPANY, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT, AND TUBOSCOPE COMPANY, ETC.,DEFENDANT.

Comments