covenant bar in New York

1926B. 180; Clarke v. Rochester, Lockport & Niagara Falls Railroad Company, 18 Barb. 350 .) ” And further (at p. 319), continues: “ In the case before us, the plaintiffs rely upon no circumstance of equity, but put their claim to relief upon the covenant and the violation of its conditions by the defendant.

1905B.] 180; Cl arke v. Lockport and Niagara Falls Railroad Company, 18 Barb. 350 .)” After reviewing the authorities cited, the learned judge continued : “ In the case before us, the plaintiffs rely upon no circumstance of equity, but put their 'claim to relief upon the covenant and the violation of its conditions by the defendant.

1981(Young Fehlhaber Pile Co. v State of New York, 265 App Div 61 .) The court generally will scrutinize carefully all disclaimers of liability.

1979(Kurek v Port Chester Housing Auth., 18 NY2d 450 ; Levine v Shell Oil Co., 28 NY2d 205 .) The "contractor cases”, however, are based on a different relationship and are motivated by a different purpose than the covenant at bar.

1979(Laba v Carey, 29 NY2d 302 .) This fundamental rule of construction is particularly important in contracts such as the covenant at bar which involve the permanent relinquishment of a right as important as that of legal recourse.

1979(Kurek v Port Chester Housing Auth., 18 NY2d 450 ; Levine v Shell Oil Co., 28 NY2d 205 .) The "contractor cases”, however, are based on a different relationship and are motivated by a different purpose than the covenant at bar.

1979(See Wolinsky, 56 Misc 2d 596 , supra; Prosser, Torts [4th ed], § 101 et seq.) The agreement of course cannot be held to bar plaintiff wife’s claims, since she did not sign it.

1975Although the court’s criticism in the Miller case was directed at the obligation to supply water, while at bar it is the supplier who is seeking to enforce the covenant, "One cannot enforce a contract not binding upon himself’ (Farago v Burke, 262 NY 229, 231 ).

1965Co. v. Barbour, 190 App. Div. 341 ; Reiner v. North American Newspaper Alliance, 259 N. Y. 250 ; Attridge v. Pembroke, 235 App. Div. 101 ; Roberts v. Criss, 266 F. 296 ), or to the enforcement of a covenant of immunity that will protect one who acts in bad faith (see Industrial & General Trust v. Tod, 180 N. Y. 215 ; Christian Mills v. Savoia Macaroni Mfg.

1965Co. v. Barbour, 190 App. Div. 341 ; Reiner v. North American Newspaper Alliance, 259 N. Y. 250 ; Attridge v. Pembroke, 235 App. Div. 101 ; Roberts v. Criss, 266 F. 296 ), or to the enforcement of a covenant of immunity that will protect one who acts in bad faith (see Industrial & General Trust v. Tod, 180 N. Y. 215 ; Christian Mills v. Savoia Macaroni Mfg.

1965Co. v. Barbour, 190 App. Div. 341 ; Reiner v. North American Newspaper Alliance, 259 N. Y. 250 ; Attridge v. Pembroke, 235 App. Div. 101 ; Roberts v. Criss, 266 F. 296 ), or to the enforcement of a covenant of immunity that will protect one who acts in bad faith (see Industrial & General Trust v. Tod, 180 N. Y. 215 ; Christian Mills v. Savoia Macaroni Mfg.

1965Co., 228 App. Div. 717 ).

1965Co. v. Barbour, 190 App. Div. 341 ; Reiner v. North American Newspaper Alliance, 259 N. Y. 250 ; Attridge v. Pembroke, 235 App. Div. 101 ; Roberts v. Criss, 266 F. 296 ), or to the enforcement of a covenant of immunity that will protect one who acts in bad faith (see Industrial & General Trust v. Tod, 180 N. Y. 215 ; Christian Mills v. Savoia Macaroni Mfg.

1965Co. v. Barbour, 190 App. Div. 341 ; Reiner v. North American Newspaper Alliance, 259 N. Y. 250 ; Attridge v. Pembroke, 235 App. Div. 101 ; Roberts v. Criss, 266 F. 296 ), or to the enforcement of a covenant of immunity that will protect one who acts in bad faith (see Industrial & General Trust v. Tod, 180 N. Y. 215 ; Christian Mills v. Savoia Macaroni Mfg.

1959In the Ganley case ( 170 Minn. 373 , supra), too, the disclaimer was quite specific, reading in this way: “ The [plaintiff] contractor has examined the said contracts * * * and the specifications and plans forming a part thereof, and is familiar with the loca tion of said work and the conditions under which the same must be performed * * * and is not relying upon any statement made by the company in respect thereto.” In deciding that a defendant could not protect himself against liability for fraud by such a provision or, indeed, by any language, the court wrote in no uncertain terms (p. 377):

1916In Watson Fireproof Window Co. v. Henry Weiss Cornice Co. ( 181 Mo. App. 318 ), where a similar question arose, the court said: “ The second defense of a breach of the covenant to protect the licensee against the competition of infringers was properly excluded on the ground that it was an independent covenant which could not be interposed as a defense to an action for royalties and to be available in such action must be made the subject of a counterclaim. * * * ` Where mutual covenants go to the whole of the consideration on both sides, they are mutual conditions, the one precedent to the othe

1905I think that the question as-to whether the' plaintiff performed the contract on his part and whether the defendant performed the contract on its part were questions for the jury and were properly submitted to them by the learned trial judge for the reasons stated on former appeal. ( 87 App. Div. 490 .) There is, however, a question presented on the appeal from the ¡judgment which, I think, requires a reversal of the judgment unless the plaintiff should consent to reduce the amount of the verdict.

1887(Hartley v. Harrison, 24 N. Y. 170 ; Garnsey v. Rogers, 47 id. 233 ; Dunning v. Leavitt, 85 id. 30 ; Knickerbocker L.

1887(Hartley v. Harrison, 24 N. Y. 170 ; Garnsey v. Rogers, 47 id. 233 ; Dunning v. Leavitt, 85 id. 30 ; Knickerbocker L.