Why Statute Of Frauds
why statute of frauds
New York Commercial Case Compendium
In a January 9, 2012, decision by Justice Bucaria, the court denied plaintiff's motion for summary judgment as pre-mature and granted defendants' motion for leave to amend its answer to allege the statute of frauds as an affirmative defense. Plaintiff-contractor sued defendant-general contractor and its surety in connection with unpaid balances on three separate construction projects and moved for summary judgment before the parties engaged in discovery.
A treatise on the statute of frauds.Learn more
William Fischer Agnew Defendants opposed the motion as pre-mature and cross-moved for leave to assert the statute of frauds as an affirmative defense based on the alleged absence of written agreements with respect to at least two of the three projects. The court agreed with defendants and denied plaintiff's motion, stating that "discovery may lead to relevant evidence" regarding, among other things, monies paid on the projects and plaintiff's damages.A Treatise on the Law of Sales of Goods, Wares and Merchandise as Affected by the Statute of Frauds: -1887
Learn more
John Freeman Baker The court also granted defendants' motion for leave to amend, finding that the statute-of-frauds defense was "meritorious" and that plaintiff would not be "prejudiced or surprised" by it.
Padilla Constr. Servs., Inc. v DiMicco Bros., Inc., Sup Ct, Nassau County, January 9, 2012, Bucaria, J., Index No. 4391/11
0 コメント:
コメントを投稿