
    M. DEAN KAUFMAN, INC., ETC., PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. AMERICAN MACHINE AND FOUNDRY COMPANY, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT, AND TUBOSCOPE COMPANY, ETC., DEFENDANT.
    Argued March 18, 1969
    Decided July 1, 1969.
    
      
      Mr. Albert G. Besser argued the cause for appellant (Messrs. Hannoch, Weisman, Stern & Besser, attorneys; Mr. James J. Shrager on the brief).
    
      Mr. William L. Dill, Jr. argued the cause for respondent (Messrs. Strylcer, Tams & Dill, attorneys; Mr. William S. Tucker, Jr. on the brief).
   The opinion of the court was delivered

Per Curiam.

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.

Affirmed.

For affirmance — Chief Justice Weinteatjb and Justices Jacobs, Eeancis, Peoctoe, Hall, Schettino and Hake-man — 7.

For reversal — None.  