M. Dean Kaufman, Inc. v. Am. Mach. & Foundry Co., 254 A.2d 786 (N.J. 1969). · Go Syfert
Search
M. Dean Kaufman, Inc. v. Am. Mach. & Foundry Co., 254 A.2d 786 (N.J. 1969). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
10 citation events (1 in the last 25 years) across 5 distinct courts.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
M. DEAN KAUFMAN, INC., ETC.
v.
AMERICAN MACHINE AND FOUNDRY COMPANY, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT, AND TUBOSCOPE COMPANY, ETC.
Supreme Court of New Jersey.
Jul 1, 1969.
254 A.2d 786
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. Strylcer, Tams & Dill, attorneys; Mr. William S. Tucker, Jr. on the brief).
Cited by 6 opinions  |  Published

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 Weinteatjb and Justices Jacobs, Eeancis, Peoctoe, Hall, Schettino and Hake-man — 7.

For reversal — None.