FavoriteLoadingSave to briefcase | Rating: | By (2012)

  • PrintEmail Link
  • Viewed 730 times | Saved to 246 briefcases
Wood v. Lucy, Lady Duff-Gordon, 222 N.Y. 88, 118 N.E. 214 (1917)

Facts:

P had exclusive right to sell D name and put it on clothes. P would get half profits. Had to do a monthly report. D sold name to someone else. P says D broke contract

Issue(s):

Is there a binding contract, is there an obligation on the plaintiffs part?

Ratio:

Where there is an obligation (on both parties) under a contract that is considered valid consideration

Analysis:

It is true that D does not promise in so many words he will use reasonable efforts to place the Ds designs. The court think that this promise is fairly implied because Ds sole compensation was from the sale of her name by P


Leave a Comment

You must be logged in to participate.

This document is a general discussion of certain legal and related issues and must not be relied upon as legal advice. This document may not have been written or reviewed by a legal practitioner. For more information, please see the website Terms of Service.