Haines v. City of New York
Court of Appeals of New York
364 N.E.2d 820 (1977)
New York City had agreed to provide sewage disposal service under a contract that did not specify a fixed term or expiration date. When the city later declined to extend service lines as requested by Haines (plaintiff), a dispute arose over how long the city's obligation was meant to last: Haines argued the contract's continuing-performance language meant it was perpetual, while the city argued that without an express duration term, the contract was terminable at will.
Whether, when a contract calling for continuing performance lacks an express duration term, the contract must be treated as perpetual or as terminable at will, rather than lasting for a duration the court can infer from the circumstances.