| Wood v. Lucy, Lady Duff-Gordon | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals |
| Full case name | Otis F. Wood v. Lucy, Lady Duff-Gordon |
| Argued | November 14 1917 |
| Decided | December 4 1917 |
| Citation | 222 N.Y. 88; 118 N.E. 214 |
| Case history | |
| Prior history | Defendant's motion to dismiss denied, Sup. Ct., Special Term; rev'd, 177 A.D. 624 (1917) |
| Holding | |
| A promise to represent the interests of a party constitutes sufficient consideration to require enforcement of a contract based on that promise. Appellate Division reversed. | |
| Court membership | |
| Chief judge | Frank H. Hiscock |
| Associate judges | Emory A. Chase, William H. Cuddeback, Benjamin N. Cardozo, Frederick E. Crane, Chester B. McLaughlin, William Shankland Andrews |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Cardozo, joined by Cuddeback, Mclaughlin, Andrews |
| Dissent | (without separate opinions) Hiscock, Chase, Crane |
Wood v. Lucy, Lady Duff-Gordon, 222 N.Y. 88, 118 N.E. 214 (1917), is a New York state contract case in which the New York Court of Appeals held Lucy, Lady Duff-Gordon, to a contract that assigned the sole right to market her name to her advertising agent.