Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

CONSUMERS TIME CREDIT, INC. v. REMARK CORP.

March 4, 1966

CONSUMERS TIME CREDIT, INC. a corporation
v.
REMARK CORP., a corporation, Lewis Bokser, individually and Lewis Bokser, individually and trading as Durabilt Paving Co., Maurice Kramer, Merit Metalcraft Corporation, a corporation, Liberal Sales Credit Co., a corporation, Sales Finco, Inc., a corporation, Reskob, Inc., a corporation, Lewis Bokser, Inc., a corporation and Sara L. Bokser



The opinion of the court was delivered by: KRAFT

 Maurice Kramer, appearing pro se, and counsel for all the remaining parties stipulated to waive and expressly waived a jury trial and the filing of any extensive findings of fact and conclusions of law herein, pursuant to "Notice to the Bar in re Waiver of Jury Trial" published in The Legal Intelligencer; and further, expressly waived the provisions of F.R.Civ.P. 52.

 The Court, accordingly, after trial of the issues upon the merits and after careful consideration of the evidence, the briefs and argument of counsel, makes the following brief:

 FINDINGS OF FACT

 1. Notwithstanding the insertion of different dates in the written agreements among the parties these agreements, P-1, P-2, P-3 and P-4, were fully executed and interchanged on the same day in April 1963 and were intended by all parties thereto to be interrelated.

 2. Exhibit P-10, a letter bearing date April 25, 1963, purportedly from Remark Corp. (Remark) to Consumers Time Credit Inc. (Consumers) was not signed or delivered on that date, but was signed and delivered to Consumers by the individual defendant, Maurice Kramer, as an individual, about 10 days after the date of execution and interchange of the written agreements among Consumers and the remaining parties (Exhibits P-1, 2, 3 and 4).

 3. Maurice Kramer had no authority from Remark to sign or deliver P-10 on its behalf.

 4. The testimony of the defendant, Maurice Kramer, was so intentionally vague, tainted with self-interest and occasional falsehood as to be, in large part, unreliable and unworthy of belief.

 5. Neither Lewis Bokser nor Sara L. Bokser, as corporate officers or as individuals, had any knowledge or notice of the execution and delivery of P-10 by Maurice Kramer at the time of its execution and delivery, nor did Merit Metalcraft Corporation (Merit), Sales Finco, Inc. (Finco), Liberal Sales Credit Co. (Liberal), Reskob, Inc. (Reskob) or Lewis Bokser, Inc. (Bokser, Inc.).

 6. Lewis Bokser first became aware that Consumers was charging fire insurance premiums and deducting the amounts thereof from loans to be made to Remark shortly after the time of the execution and delivery of Exhibit P-10 by Kramer to Consumers.

 Lewis Bokser first acquired knowledge and notice of the foregoing practice of Remark and of Kramer shortly after it began and, with such knowledge and notice, permitted such regular practices between Consumers and Remark and between Remark and the latter's individual customers to continue uninterruptedly without objection or dissent.

 7. Sara L. Bokser never had knowledge or notice of such practices and courses of conduct, as aforesaid, between Consumers and Remark or between Remark and its individual customers, nor did Merit, Finco, Liberal, Reskob or Bokser, Inc.

 8. The deduction by Consumers from loan advances due to be made to Remark of sums in excess of $18,000 for fire insurance premiums was, as to Sara L. Bokser, a material, substantial breach by Consumers of the contract between Consumers and Remark (Exhibit P-1), of ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.