Contracts New York Distinctions Flashcards
New York enforces restrictive covenants on employment, provided they are (4 elements)
reasonable in time and area, necessary to protect the employer’s legitimate interests, not harmful to the general public, and not unreasonably burdensome to the employee. BDO Seidman v. Hirshberg, 93 N.Y.2d 382 (1999).
New York considers any unsolicited and voluntarily sent merchandise an
unconditional gift. A merchant or his agent may not offer for sale any goods if the offer for sale includes the unsolicited sending of such goods. The recipient must have ordered or requested such goods from the merchant or his agent.
The recipient of unsolicited goods may
use or dispose of the goods as she sees fit without any obligation to the sender. N.Y. Gen. Oblig. Law § 5-332.
If an offer to enter into a contract is made in writing, signed by the offeror or his agent, and the contract specifies that the offer is irrevocable, such offer
may not be revoked during the stated time period (or for a reasonable time if no period of time is stated).
Consideration is not needed to support the offer. This provision does not apply to an offer by a merchant to buy or sell goods.
Merchants remain subject to the “firm offer” rules set forth under the UCC. N.Y. Gen. Oblig. Law § 5-1109.
An offeror can revoke an offer to a unilateral contract….
at any time up until the offeree completes performance. Unlike common law, the beginning of performance by the offeree does not create an option contract or make the offer irrevocable for a reasonable period of time to allow complete performance.
A promise to pay a reward for the return of lost or mislaid property is enforceable if
the promise was in writing or the promisor otherwise caused it to be published. N.Y. Gen. Oblig. Law § 5-1113.
If a promise or warranty is written into a deed or conveyance of an estate or real property interest and proved in a lawful manner to be recorded, such promise or warranty
will not be denied simply for lack of consideration, if no consideration was intended. N.Y. Gen Oblig. Law § 5-1115.
In New York, a written promise, signed by the promisor or his agent, is not deemed invalid solely on the ground that the consideration for the promise is past or executed, so long as the past or executed consideration: (3 elements)
i) Is expressed in the writing;
ii) Is proved to have been given or performed; and
iii) Would be deemed valid consideration at the time it was given or performed.
N.Y. Gen. Oblig. Law § 5-1105.
In New York, a written agreement to change or modify any contract or discharge any debt or other obligation is not invalid due to lack of consideration, so long as…
the agreement is expressed in writing and signed by the party against whom it is to be enforced or her agent. N.Y. Gen. Oblig. Law § 5-1103. Note: New York has specifically recognized that a party alleging an oral modification of a contract may be able to assert an estoppel argument. Republic Nat’l Bank v. Sabet, 512 F. Supp. 416 (S.D.N.Y. 1980).
In New York, the following contracts may not be disaffirmed by an infant solely on the ground of infancy:
i) All contracts entered into by a person 18 years or older;
ii) Contracts that involve the marital home;
iii) Contracts for artistic or athletic services (subject to judicial approval);
iv) Student loan contracts entered into by a person 16 years or older; and
v) Life insurance contracts by those 14½ years or older.
N.Y. Gen. Oblig. Law § 3-101; N.Y. Arts & Cult. Aff. Law § 35.03; N.Y. Educ. Law § 281.
Remember: MALL
New York explicitly makes certain contracts usurious and unenforceable when the interest rate exceeds ___% per annum.
16
In New York, the general rule is that exculpatory clauses and limitation of liability clauses are enforceable against negligence claims, but unenforceable against…
willful acts or gross negligence. Kalisch-Jarcho, Inc v. City of New York, 58 N.Y.2d 377 (1983); Melodee Lane Lingerie Co v. American Dist. Tel. Co., 18 N.Y.2d 57 (1966); Ciofalo v. Vic Tanney Gyms, Inc., 10 N.Y.2d 294 (1961).
clauses in construction, alteration, repair, or maintenance contracts that exempt the owner, builder, contractor, repairer, or their agents from liability for negligence are against public policy and are…
void and unenforceable.
agreements (including language written on admission tickets) exempting facilities such as pools, gyms, and places of public amusement or recreation from liability for negligence are
void and unenforceable as against public policy, as long as the facility owner received a fee or other compensation for use of the facility.
For well over a century, parties to construction contracts in New York were permitted by decisional law and by statute to agree to “pay-if-paid” provisions. Agreements of that type create a condition precedent by which subcontractors would not be paid unless the contractor was paid. However,
the Court of Appeals held that such contracts violate New York’s public policy
(because such agreements arguably operated as forbidden waivers of the right to enforce a mechanics’ lien that seeks to protect New York subcontractors from the oppressive use of a contractor’s bargaining power.)