APFEL V. PRUDENTIAL BACHE SECURITIES, INC.
616 N.E.2d 1095 (1993)
NATURE OF THE CASE: This was a dispute over the use of computerized book entry system. Apfel (P), banker and lawyer, and Prudential (D), investment bank, sought review of a decision by the Appellate Division, which modified an order of the lower court and reinstated a cause of action and the allegations of consideration in the answer and counterclaim, and struck Ps' demand for punitive damages, in Ps' cause of action for breach of contract.
FACTS: P, approached D with a proposal for issuing municipal securities through a system that eliminated the paper certificates and allowed the bonds to be sold, traded, and held exclusively by means of computerized book entries. P and D agreed to a contract and D was to pay even if the techniques used became public knowledge. D used the system and was the sole underwriter using that system for at least the first year. After three years of payments on the contract, D refused to pay any more. D contends that the ideas that P sold D were in the public domain and that P had no right to sell. P sued D. The court dismissed all of P's claims except the breach of contract claim. D's claim that the contract lacked consideration was dismissed. D appealed. D's claim of lack of consideration was reinstated and P's claim for unjust enrichment. P appealed.
ISSUE:
RULE OF LAW:
HOLDING AND
DECISION:
LEGAL ANALYSIS:
Get
free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online
for 2-3 days and free samples
of all kinds of products.
https://bsmsphd.com
