American Copper, Brass & Iron Works v. Galland-Burke Brewing & Malting Co.

Citations

• 30 Wash. 178
• 70 P. 236
• 1902 Wash. LEXIS 667

Syllabus

<p>SALES-TIME EOB PEEFOBMANCE OE CONTRACT-EXTENSION-EVIDENCE.</p> <p>In an action for tbe price of goods shipped by plaintiff to defendant, in wbicb the plaintiff sought to establish a waiver of an agreement for liquidated damages for any delay in shipment, evidence that a stockholder of defendant, who was temporarily in plaintiff’s city on other business, had expressly agreed to an extension of time for shipment is admissible, when letters of defendant, though subsequent in date to the alleged agreement for extension, carry the inference that such stockholder was defendant’s authorized agent for the purpose.</p> <p>BILL OE PABTICCLABS-ADMISSIBILITY .IN EVIDENCE.</p> <p>A bill of particulars furnished by plaintiff in response to a motion by defendant is admissible in evidence on the part of defendant, although no order against plaintiff to furnish the bill is shown by the record as ever having been made.</p> <p>SAME — HEARING OE EVIDENCE.</p> <p>Conversations had by plaintiff with a former employee of defendant tending to show that defendant suffered no actual damage by reason of plaintiff’s delay in furnishing goods contracted to be delivered at a stipulated time under penalty of' liquidated damages, are inadmissible on the ground of being hearsay.</p> <p>LIQUIDATED DAMAGES-SHOWING OE ACTUAL DAMAGE UNNECESSARY.</p> <p>Under a contract providing for liquidated damages, it is not necessary to show in what manner or to what extent the party claiming thereunder has been actually damaged, but upon establishing a breach of the condition entitling him to such damages he should be awarded the stipulated sum.</p> <p>PLEADING — ADMISSIONS IN ANSWER.</p> <p>Where the complaint set up a written contract between the parties, and followed this with allegations of other matters which it averred were actually a part of the contract, but omitted by mistake, and the admission of the answer was merely that “the contract set forth in said complaint is a true copy of the contract betwe