Logourl black
From our private database of 13,300+ case briefs...

Schwartzreich v. Bauman-Basch, Inc.

Court of Appeals New York
131 N.E. 887 (1921)


On August 31, 1917, Louis Schwartzreich (plaintiff) entered into an employment agreement with Bauman-Basch, Inc. (Bauman-Basch) (defendant), signed on behalf of Bauman-Basch by one of its officers, S. Bauman. The employment term was one year, starting November 22, 1917, at a salary of $90 per week. In October 1917, Schwartzreich received an offer for a higher salary from another company. After discussing the offer with Bauman, he agreed to stay with Bauman-Basch at an increased salary of $100 per week. On October 17, 1917, the parties signed a second employment contract, identical to the first but for the change in salary. Simultaneous to the execution of the new agreement, Schwartzreich tore off the signatures from his copy of the August contract and either gave or left the contract with Bauman. According to Schwartzreich, Bauman said the August contract was no longer needed because the October contract took its place. In December, Schwartzreich was terminated by Bauman-Basch. He sued for breach of contract, seeking damages based on the October agreement. The trial judge charged the jury with determining whether the August contract was cancelled by the parties’ mutual consent “prior to or at the time of the execution” of the October agreement, in which case damages were to be based on Schwartzreich’s $100-per-week salary. Counsel for Bauman-Basch objected to the instruction that the August contract could have been cancelled at the same time that the October agreement was made. The jury found that the August contract was cancelled and issued a verdict in favor of Schwartzreich. The trial judge then set aside that verdict, citing insufficient evidence to find a cancellation of the August contract. On appeal, the Appellate Term reversed the trial court’s ruling and reinstated the jury verdict and judgment. Bauman-Basch appealed.

Rule of Law

The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision. To access this section, start your 7-day free trial of Quimbee for Law Students.


The issue section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question. To access this section, start your 7-day free trial of Quimbee for Law Students.

Holding and Reasoning (Crane, J.)

The holding and reasoning section includes:

  • A “yes” or “no” answer to the question framed in the issue section;
  • A summary of the majority or plurality opinion, using the CREAC method; and
  • The procedural disposition (e.g. reversed and remanded, affirmed, etc.).

To access this section, start your 7-day free trial of Quimbee for Law Students.

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 136,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 13,300 briefs, keyed to 182 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.