Bascom v. Danville Stove & Manufacturing Co.

Citations

• 182 Pa. 427
• 38 A. 510
• 1897 Pa. LEXIS 827

Syllabus

<p>Contract — Acceptance or refusal of goods purchased — Notice of nonacceptance — Effect of alterations — Warranty—Damages—Set-off—Charge of the court.</p> <p>In an action to recover the price of patterns, sold without an express warranty, where the defendant alleges that he suffered damages by reason of their unfitness, and the court, after instructing the jury that the patterns should be reasonably fit and suitable for the purpose lor which they were designed, adds, “if they were not, and the defendant by reason thereof has sustained damage to an amount equal to, or in excess of, the contract price, then you must find for the defendant,” it is not error to further charge that if the jury should find that the defendant retained and used the patterns, and the damages were less than the contract price, “ then if the patterns have any value for any purpose, notwithstanding their unfitness for the use for which they were intended, the plaintiff might be entitled to recover such value.”</p> <p>In an action to recover the purchase price of patterns the evidence tended to show that for a considerable period defendant made changes in the patterns, and gave no notice of a refusal to accept them. Subsequently defendant wrote as follows: “We fear we cannot use them at all; we must either be paid for the extra cost, or we will return the patterns. Please advise us what to do in the matter, and oblige.” Held, that the letter could not be regarded as an absolute refusal to accept the patterns. .</p> <p>In an action to recover the contract price of goods it is not improper to charge that if the jury should find that the plaintiff did not fully and entirely fulfill his contract, and that notwithstanding such failure the defendant received and accepted the goods for an unreasonable length of time before giving notice of such failure, and without offering to return them in as good condition as they were when received, then the plaintiff might recover the contract price, less the da