Narrative Opinion Summary
In a breach of contract action, the defendant appeals a judgment from the Supreme Court, Queens County, that awarded the plaintiff $70,125 after a nonjury trial. The plaintiff cross-appeals the dismissal of its claims for damages related to fraud and under General Business Law § 349. The court affirmed the judgment without costs or disbursements. The dispute arose from a written agreement dated June 23, 1988, in which the defendant sold and licensed computer hardware and software to the plaintiff for business use. The contract allowed the plaintiff a 30-day refund period for the software upon delivery. The defendant delivered the computer and some components on October 24, 1988, but the software was not delivered until December 7, 1988. Consequently, the plaintiff's request for a refund on December 26, 1988, was deemed timely. The court found the remaining arguments from both parties to be either academic or without merit. All justices concurred in the decision.
Legal Issues Addressed
Affirmation of Judgment and Dismissal of Claimssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court affirmed the original judgment awarding the plaintiff damages and dismissed the plaintiff's additional claims related to fraud and under General Business Law § 349.
Reasoning: The plaintiff cross-appeals the dismissal of its claims for damages related to fraud and under General Business Law § 349. The court affirmed the judgment without costs or disbursements.
Breach of Contract and Timely Refund Requestssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court upheld the plaintiff's right to a refund request as timely, based on the contract's 30-day return policy starting from the delivery date of the software.
Reasoning: The defendant delivered the computer and some components on October 24, 1988, but the software was not delivered until December 7, 1988. Consequently, the plaintiff's request for a refund on December 26, 1988, was deemed timely.
Evaluation of Additional Argumentssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court considered additional arguments from both parties and found them to be either academic or without merit, leading to a concurrence among the justices.
Reasoning: The court found the remaining arguments from both parties to be either academic or without merit. All justices concurred in the decision.