General Electric Co. v. Camden Iron Works

Citations

• 239 Pa. 411
• 86 A. 1012
• 1913 Pa. LEXIS 583

Syllabus

<p>Contracts — Written contracts — Affidavits of defense — Rule for judgment — Oral evidence to contradict written contract.</p> <p>1. Where plaintiff declared upon a written contract and defendant filed an affidavit of defense, from which it appeared that the defense in part was rested upon an alleged oral agreement contradictory of the written contract, and it was not averred that the alleged oral agreement was omitted from the written contract by fraud, accident or mistake, the affidavit was insufficient in so far as it rested upon the said alleged oral contract.</p> <p>2. Plaintiff filed a statement of claim from which it appeared that by letter dated January 30, 1906, it offered to furnish defendant certain motors as specified therein, at a price of $822.00 each, further stating: “We can make shipment on the first of the above outfits in five months, and at the rate of two per week thereafter.” At the top of the letter was stamped: “Terms cash thirty, days from date of shipment.” On October 1, 1906, defendant replied by letter accepting the proposal contained in plaintiff’s letter, and further stating: “It is understood that you can make shipment of the first of these motors in five months from date and afterwards at the rate of two motors.per week. We hope that you can arrange to somewhat anticipate this rate of delivery as the entire contract must be completed in two hundred days,. or six months and twenty days, under penalty of twenty dollars per day.” A formal order for the motors was enclosed with, defendant’s letter. This order contained the words: “Price for the lot $8,220.00 F. O. B. Schenectady, N. Y. Terms not specified,” with a reference to the letters above referred to. It also contained the words: “Wanted one hundred days or less.” Certain additional orders were made and filed and certain amounts paid on account, as to which there was no dispute. Defendant filed an affidavit of defense in which it alleged that there was an oral agreement by which p