Armstrong v. Descalzi

Citations

• 48 Pa. Super. 171
• 1911 Pa. Super. LEXIS 353

Syllabus

<p>Contract — Sale—Warranty—Breach.</p> <p>1. In an action to recover the price of a car load of grape fruit, where the defendant claims damages as a set-off for a breach of warranty, and it appears that the plaintiff warranted the fruit in the correspondence establishing the contract as “first class stock,” and evidence offered by the defendant shows that there were three well known grades of grape fruit, and that the fruit actually delivered was of the third grade, it is for the court to determine whether the correspondence contained a warranty, but it is for the jury to determine whether the classification alleged bjr the defendant actually existed.</p> <p>2. In such case where it appears that the contract was made by correspondence alleged to contain the warranty, it is immaterial that one of the defendants had seen the grove in which the grape fruit was growing, before the sale, if it appears that the transaction was consummated by the correspondence alone without reference to any inspection of the goods by one of the defendants.</p> <p>3. Where a contract of sale is made by correspondence the fact that the word “warrant” or “warranty” does not appear in the correspondence, is not conclusive that there was no warranty. It is enough if the words actually used are not dubious or equivocal, and if it appears from the whole evidence that the affirmant intended to warrant and did not express a mere matter of judgment or opinion.</p> <p>Contract — Sale—Warranty—Damages.</p> <p>4. Where purchasers exercise acts of ownership over goods, after they have ascertained the value of the goods, they are estopped from rescinding the sale, and their measure of damages for the breach of a warranty is not the expenditures they make in selling the goods, but the difference between the value of the goods received, and the value of the goods warranted.</p>