Lee is not a party to any of the agreements at iss
Post# of 8802
(Total Views: 559)
Posted On: 01/11/2017 2:27:54 PM
Lee is not a party to any of the agreements at issue(ECF No. 8, Ex A and Ex C), including the guaranty,and thus, cannot be held personally liable as a matter of law. See, e.g., Pacific Carlton Development Corp. v. 752 Pacific, LLC, 62 A.D.3d 677, 678 (2d Dep’t 2009) (dismissing breach of contract claim against individual because he “was not a party to the contract alleged to have been breached” and thus, could not be bound by the contract”).
Lee only signed the factoring agreements in his capacity as an officer of United
and as such, is not personally liable. See GMS Batching, Inc. v. Tadco Construction Corporation, 120 A.D.3d 550, 552 (2d Dep’t 2014)(“A corporate officer who executes a contract acting as an agent for a disclosed principal is not liable for a breach of the contract unless it clear appears that he or she intended to bind himself or herself personally”) (citing, inter alia Salzman Sign Co. v. Beck, 10 N.Y.2d 63, 65 (1961)
Lee only signed the factoring agreements in his capacity as an officer of United
and as such, is not personally liable. See GMS Batching, Inc. v. Tadco Construction Corporation, 120 A.D.3d 550, 552 (2d Dep’t 2014)(“A corporate officer who executes a contract acting as an agent for a disclosed principal is not liable for a breach of the contract unless it clear appears that he or she intended to bind himself or herself personally”) (citing, inter alia Salzman Sign Co. v. Beck, 10 N.Y.2d 63, 65 (1961)
(2)
(0)Talkspace Inc. (TALK) Stock Research Links
Scroll down for more posts ▼