Logourl black
From our private database of 14,000+ case briefs...

Wilson Trading Corporation v. David Ferguson, Ltd.

Court of Appeals of New York
244 N.E.2d 685 (1968)


Facts

Wilson Trading Corporation (Wilson) (plaintiff) sold yarn to David Ferguson, Ltd. (Ferguson) (defendant). Paragraph two of the sales contract provided that no claims relating to the quality or shade of the yarn could be brought after the yarn was knitted or processed or more than ten days after receipt of the yarn. Paragraph four stated that Wilson’s obligations were limited to delivering good, merchantable yarn. Wilson delivered the yarn, and Ferguson accepted the delivery. The yarn was then knitted into sweaters and washed, after which variations in the color of the yarn were discovered. According to Ferguson, this made the yarn unmerchantable. Ferguson refused to pay for the yarn, and Wilson sued for the contract price of the yarn. Wilson argued that Ferguson’s claim of a defect was barred because it was not raised before washing or processing the yarn as required under paragraph two of the contract. Ferguson argued that the contract’s time limit on bringing claims was unreasonable because the defect in the yarn could not be discovered until after the product was finished and washed. Special Term granted summary judgment in favor of Wilson. The Appellate Division affirmed. Ferguson appealed.

Rule of Law

The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Issue

The issue section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Holding and Reasoning (Jasen, 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, please start your free trial or log in.

Concurrence (Fuld, J.)

The concurrence section is for members only and includes a summary of the concurring judge or justice’s opinion.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

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 175,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,000 briefs, keyed to 188 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.