Decided: July 1, 1969.
M. DEAN KAUFMAN, INC., ETC., PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
AMERICAN MACHINE AND FOUNDRY COMPANY, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT, AND TUBOSCOPE COMPANY, ETC., DEFENDANT
For affirmance -- Chief Justice Weintraub and Justices Jacobs, Francis, Proctor, Hall, Schettino and Haneman. For reversal -- None.
[54 NJ Page 240]
We affirm essentially for the reasons given by the Appellate Division. 102 N.J. Super. 1 (App. Div. 1968). However, without proof that it is generally recognized in the finder's business or profession that "in contracts of this type, absent specific contractual language to the contrary, there is an implied prerequisite of 'authority to offer' which must exist between the candidate and the agent-broker" (102 N.J. Super. 9), we are not prepared to agree with that conclusion of the Appellate Division.