Delaplaine v. Ammonia Co. of Philadelphia

Citations

• 2 Pa. Super. 555
• 1896 Pa. Super. LEXIS 84

Syllabus

<p>Contract — Construction of written correspondence — Province of court and jury.</p> <p>Where the correspondence between the parties defines a contract and shows repeated efforts on the part of the vendors to comply with its terms and repeated excuses on the part of the vendees for nonperformance on their part, the trial judge did not fail in his duty, as to construction of the written correspondence, in instructing the juiy, that, from the letters of the vendees, it appeared that they had refused to comply with their contract; but as there was also oral evidence on the question it was properly left to the jury to say whether under all the evidence the vendees had actually refused to receive a balance of scrap undelivered but contracted for by them.</p> <p>Evidence — Damages—■ Vendor and vendee — Sale of property refused by vendees.</p> <p>When the evidence showed conclusively a refusal by defendants to take a balance of scrap, as they agreed to do, evidence is properly admissible on the part of the plaintiffs to show that they proceeded with due diligence and care to sell the same and that the full current market price was actually realized from the sale.</p>