Foedisch v. Arrow Coal Mining Co.

Citations

• 266 Pa. 231
• 109 A. 869
• 1920 Pa. LEXIS 540

Syllabus

<p>Contract — Compromise contract — Continuing contract for sale of coal.</p> <p>1. In an action fox’ breach of contract, it appeared that there was an original contract by which defendant agreed to sell to plaintiff 350 to 400 tons of coal daily at $1.50 a ton. The contract was to continue until April 1, 1917. A dispute having arisen between the parties and the market price having increased greatly, the parties, in October, 1916, entered into a compromise agreement by which the amoxxnt of coal to he delivered during the balance of the term was fixed at 2,050 tons per week. Of this amount plaintiff sold hack to defendant 850 tons at the rate of $3.25 per ton. The balance, 1,200 tons per week, was to he delivered from the first output of the mine unless delivery was prevented by inadequate car supply, accidents or strikes, in which case the defendant was thereafter to make up the coal in default. It was further provided that plaintiff should pay the sum of $1.50 per ton for all coal shipped to him under the terms of the compromise agreement, and that he should have the right for each four weeks’ period to apply as a credit on such payment the purchase price of the 850 gross tons per week at the rate of $3.25 per ton, less the contract price of $1.50 per ton. The original contract provided that neither of the parties should be liable to perform any of its terms or conditions for causes over which he should have no control. The compromise agreement retained this provision as binding upon the parties, “except as hereinafter modified and changed.” Held, that defendant was hound to allow a credit of $1.15 per ton on 850 tons per week, although the coal was not actually mined because of causes beyond defendant’s control.</p> <p>2. In such, a case the compromise contract, in effect, guaranteed to plaintiff a fixed sum per week for the surrender of his rights expressed in the original contract. By the original contract, plaintiff was entitled to from 2,100 to 2,400 tons per