Babayan v. Reed

Citations

• 257 Pa. 206
• 101 A. 339
• 1917 Pa. LEXIS 708

Syllabus

<p>Contracts — Contracts for hire — Rescission — Discharge• — Damages — Measure of damages — Delay in payment — Mitigation ■ of damages — Evidence—Admissibility—Requests for charge.</p> <p>1. Where in an action for breach of a contract in discharging plaintiff from defendants’ employ it appeared that plaintiff had owned a cigarette business, which he had sold to defendants, under a contract whereby plaintiff should be employed by defendants at a weekly salary for a period of years, and should receive in addition a percentage of the profits, and that two months thereafter defendants discharged plaintiff from their employ and excluded him from their place of business, although defendants contended that the contract had been rescinded by mutual consent, the case was properly submitted to the jury. ■ « . • . .</p> <p>2. While it was competent for defendants to show in mitigation of damages that plaintiff might by reasonable efforts have secured employment elsewhere in the same locality, it was not error to refuse to permit defendants to ask one of their witnesses, who had qualified as an expert in the tobacco business, to answer vague and indefinite questions as to whether or not an expert cigarette maker and vendor and buyer could command a big salary, whether such a person is in demand in the trade and whether such an expert has any difficulty in obtaining employment.</p> <p>3. Where defendants contended that the contract had been rescinded by mutual consent, but the only evidence of such rescission was that after a dispute between plaintiff and defendaiits one of defendants said he would pay the plaintiff no more money and plaintiff thereupon told defendants that he would get an injunction and would prevent them from using his brand and would cancel the contract, and thereupon went out of the store stating that he was going to see his lawyer, such evidence of rescission was insufficient for submission to the jury, particularly where it appeared that plaintiff remaine