Skip to main content
INTERNAL PROTOTYPE — NOT LEGAL ADVICE — DO NOT SEND

Camalier & Buckley-Madison, Inc. v. The Madison Hotel, Inc., 513 F.2d 407 (1975)

Citation
Camalier & Buckley-Madison, Inc. v. The Madison Hotel, Inc., 513 F.2d 407 (1975)
Parent Document
Camalier & Buckley-Madison, Inc. v. The Madison Hotel, Inc., 513 F.2d 407 (1975)
Jurisdiction
DC (municipal)
Effective Date
1975-05-22

Other Sections in This Document (190)

Full Text

911 chars
The legal effect of the [seller’s] letter should be that the contract came to an end ten days after its receipt by the [buyer]. By giving the letter this effect, the [buyer] received fully the protection to which it agreed, the period of notice is determined by the appropriate contract provision, and the [seller’s] definite, meaningful act is not an empty gesture. To hold that the letter had no effect because it mistakenly set a period short of that required would make a modern application of the brittle fifteenth century common law. The rule which we adopt, that a notice, good in all other respects, such as being definite rather than a mere statement of future intention, is not made totally ineffective because it states a period shorter than the contract requires, is in accordance with the authorities. 80 And the court explained away any antithetic which Merritt might superficially have indicated: