Barsky v. Lutz & Schramm Co.

Citations

• 74 Pa. Super. 449
• 1920 Pa. Super. LEXIS 173

Syllabus

<p>Contracts — Written contracts — Construction—Case for jury.</p> <p>Where a contract for the sale of sauerkraut provided that, in the event of a short crop, the contract orders might he filled pro rata, and where there was no evidence introduced of the shortage of the crop, other than upon a certain tract, the burden of proof was clearly upon the defendants to produce evidence which would support a finding that the plaintiff knew, or should have known, their methods of doing business, and that the ghortage of the crop mentioned was a shortage in about 200 acres of territory adjacent to their plant, the product of which they had bought to enable them to fulfill their contract. Without such evidence they could not ask the jury to write into their contract, an exemption from liability not imported by the language of the written contract.</p> <p>Contracts — Breach of contract — Damages—Case for jury.</p> <p>Where the testimony as to the amount of damages sustained in a breach of contract is parol, even though it be uncontradicted, the credibility of the witness testifying as to such damages, is for the jury and until that attribute is stamped on his testimony by a verdict it is not competent for the trial judge to assume their function and to direct them to find for the plaintiff in a specified amount. The only correct method when the testimony is oral, and especially in cases where damages are to be liquidated, is to submit the case to the jury, and failure to do so constitutes reversible error.</p>