Apfel v. Prudential-Bache Securities Inc.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that novelty and originality were not required in cases involving disclosure of ideas in which there was a post-disclosure contract for the idea
• finding that Appellate Division erred in reinstating unjust enrichment claim where express agreement controlled parties’ rights and liabilities
• finding that novelty establishes the value of the consideration necessary for a contract for the disclosure of ideas with payment based on use
• observing that anything with “real value in the eye of the law” can serve as consideration
• noting that, “[u]nder the traditional principles of contract law, the parties to a contract are free to make their bargain, even if the consideration exchanged is grossly unequal or of dubious value”
• dismissing claim based on unjust enrichment because “the transaction is controlled by the express agreement of the parties”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).