Bartus v. Riccardi
City Court, City of Utica, New York
284 N.Y.S.2d 222 (1967)
- Written by Denise McGimsey, JD
Facts
Frank Riccardi (defendant) purchased a Model A-660 Acousticon hearing aid from Frank Bartus (plaintiff), a licensed representative of Acousticon, making a down payment of $80. When the hearing aid was delivered, however, it was a Model A-665, which was represented to be a newer, improved version of the A-660. Riccardi was fitted with the aid, but it immediately bothered him. Approximately one week after receiving it, he returned the hearing aid to Bartus, complaining about headaches it caused and that it was not the model he ordered. Bartus offered to obtain an A-660, to which Riccardi did not respond affirmatively or negatively. Neither party expressed anything about canceling their existing contract. Bartus immediately contacted Acousticon, which promptly sent a letter to Riccardi offering to deliver the A-660 or a replacement of the A-665 he had been given. Riccardi declined to accept either, and Bartus then sued him for the balance owed on their contract. The trial court considered the principal legal issue of the case.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Hymes, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 805,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.