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 |
m (DeRien moved page Allhusen v. Caristo Construction Corp. to Allhusen v. Caristo Construction: shorten) |
||
(3 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
|date=January 24, 1952 | |date=January 24, 1952 | ||
|subject=Contracts | |subject=Contracts | ||
|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. | |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 [[Contracts/Assignment|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"). | 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"). | ||
Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
-- | -- | ||
Kroo completed the painting. However, Caristo refused to pay Allhusen. | Kroo completed the painting. However, Caristo refused to pay Allhusen $11,650 ([https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i=US%2411650+%281952+US+dollars%29 about $132,000 in 2023]). | ||
|procedural_history=Allhusen sued Caristo for the money due to Kroo's performance of painting. | |||
Allhusen lost in the trial court. The NY Appellate Division affirmed the trial court's dismissal of Allhusen's lawsuit. | |||
|issues=Can parties limit the freedom of assignability in specific contracts? | |issues=Can parties limit the freedom of assignability in specific contracts? | ||
May a party (Caristo) use an anti-[[Contracts/Assignment|assignment]] clause to prevent another party (Kroo) from assigning its contractual rights? | |||
|arguments=Caristo argued that it didn't have to pay Allhusen because of the anti-assignment provision in the contract between Caristo & Kroo. | |||
|holding=A party may use an anti-assignment clause to prohibit another party from assigning its contractual obligations. | |||
|case_text_links={{Infobox Case Brief/Case Text Link | |case_text_links={{Infobox Case Brief/Case Text Link | ||
|link=https://casetext.com/case/allhusen-v-caristo-constr-corp | |link=https://casetext.com/case/allhusen-v-caristo-constr-corp |
Latest revision as of 20:28, 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 $11,650 (about $132,000 in 2023).Procedural History
Allhusen sued Caristo for the money due to Kroo's performance of painting.
Allhusen lost in the trial court. The NY Appellate Division affirmed the trial court's dismissal of Allhusen's lawsuit.Issues
Can parties limit the freedom of assignability in specific contracts?
May a party (Caristo) use an anti-assignment clause to prevent another party (Kroo) from assigning its contractual rights?Arguments
Caristo argued that it didn't have to pay Allhusen because of the anti-assignment provision in the contract between Caristo & Kroo.
Holding
A party may use an anti-assignment clause to prohibit another party from assigning its contractual obligations.
Case Text Links
- Summary at CaseText
- Video summary at Quimbee
- Case text at Leagle
- Case Brief at lawschoolcasebriefs.net