Kemi, Inc. v. Berlitz Int'l, Inc., 228 A.D.2d 281 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep't 1996). · Go Syfert
Kemi, Inc. v. Berlitz Int'l, Inc., 228 A.D.2d 281 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep't 1996). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
Cited for
644 N.Y.S.2d at 27 “[A] remedy specified for breach of an individual contract term is not necessarily a remedy for breach of other terms in the contract”1 citing case1 citing court quotes it
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Kemi, Inc., and Counterclaim
v.
Berlitz International, Inc., Ogilvy Group, Inc., Counterclaim
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Jun 13, 1996.
Published opinion
228 A.D.2d 281
1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6722
Cited by 1 opinion  |  Published

The disputed provisions in Articles III and IV of the Asset Purchase Agreement do not specify exclusive remedies for breach of warranties made in Article VII thereof. Moreover, a remedy specified for breach of an individual contract term is not necessarily a remedy for breach of other terms in the contract.

The internal memorandum from defendant, produced by counterclaim defendants on their motion, does not show that the parties contemplated that the matter was settled and that there would be no further writings required (cf., Condo v Mulcahy, 88 AD2d 497, 500). We have considered counterclaim defendants’ remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Wallach, Nardelli and Tom, JJ.