The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

P leased its fur department to a concessionaire, Hurwitz, but that business was so conducted as to appear to customers to have been a part of P's operations. Fur coats, left by customers with Hurwitz for storage and cleaning, were turned over to D who stored and cleaned them pursuant to an agreement with Hurwitz. P knew something of Hurwitz' arrangement with D. Hurwitz went bankrupt, and P canceled his concession. D still had in his possession 412 garments, on which Hurwitz owed D $622.50. P offered to pay D that sum for the return of the garments. Hurwitz owed D an additional $3,232.55 with respect to other garments that had been delivered back to customers during the preceding two years. D demanded the total sum of $3,855.05. from P. Temperatures began to drop, and P’s customers began demanding their coats. P wanted to negotiated, and D proposed that it would deliver the garments directly to P's customers without charge to the P if P would turn over their names. D apparently purposed to bill them directly for Hurwitz' total charges on the coats, which totaled some $4,000 and D would also get a lot of new customers. On November 29, P caved and paid $3,855.05. P then sued D for $3,232.55 under business compulsion. The court ruled for P and D appealed.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.