{[ promptMessage ]}

Bookmark it

{[ promptMessage ]}

Austin Instrument v. Loral Corporation - threated or proof...

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Austin Instruments v. Loral Corporation 29 N.Y. 2d 124 (1971) Fact: Operative Facts: A contractor was awarded a contract from the Navy. The contract subcontracted the work to them, called Austin Instruments. The Navy awarded another contract to the contractor, and the subcontractor negotiated to the contractor a price raised on the merchandise in the first contract, and the subcontract, and stated that they wanted the whole part of the subcontract, or else they’ll breach the contract and stop delivering. Contractor had no choice, but to go with them. Contractor claimed economic duress, but their case doesn’t meet economic duress, says the trial court. Issue: Whether the contractor could recover Rule: Economic duress must prove that there is an immediate possession of needful goods is
Background image of page 1
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: threated, or proof that one party to contract has threatened to breach the agreement by withholding goods unless the other party agrees to some further demands. Rational: The appellate court labeled the incident as a “self-imposed, undisclosed and subjective,” however it’s perfectly reasonable for Loral to consider itself in an emergency duress situation because they have to deliver a staggered amount to the navy each month, and if they don’t deliever, then they may jepedorize their ability to gain future contracts with the Navy. Holding: Loral deserves recover the damages it incurred from a duress situation, from the price hike. They can recover through restitution after the contract was completed. Synthesis: Dissent/Concurrences:...
View Full Document

{[ snackBarMessage ]}