This site is a developmental version of Wiki Law School. To go to the production site: www.wikilawschool.org

Allhusen v. Caristo Construction: Difference between revisions

From wikilawschool.net. Wiki Law School does not provide legal advice. For educational purposes only.
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 7: Line 7:


Nevertheless, Kroo assigned its sub-contract to Marine Midland First Company of New York which in turn assigns its sub-contract to Mr. Allhusen ("Allhusen").
Nevertheless, Kroo assigned its sub-contract to Marine Midland First Company of New York which in turn assigns its sub-contract to Mr. Allhusen ("Allhusen").
--
Kroo completed the painting. However, Caristo refused to pay Allhusen.
|issues=Can parties limit the freedom of assignability in specific contracts?
|issues=Can parties limit the freedom of assignability in specific contracts?
|case_text_links={{Infobox Case Brief/Case Text Link
|case_text_links={{Infobox Case Brief/Case Text Link

Revision as of 20:12, July 20, 2023

Allhusen v. Caristo Construction
Court New York Court of Appeals of New York
Citation 103 N.E.2d 891
Date decided January 24, 1952

Facts

Caristo Construction Corporation ("Caristo"), a general contractor, entered into a sub-contract with Kroo Painting ("Kroo"). Caristo hired Kroo for a painting job in New York City public schools. Their contract prohibited Kroo from assigning any part of the contract to another party unless Caristo provided express written consent.

Nevertheless, Kroo assigned its sub-contract to Marine Midland First Company of New York which in turn assigns its sub-contract to Mr. Allhusen ("Allhusen").

--

Kroo completed the painting. However, Caristo refused to pay Allhusen.

Issues

Can parties limit the freedom of assignability in specific contracts?

Case Text Links