Harris v. Sharples

Citations

• 202 Pa. 243
• 51 A. 965
• 1902 Pa. LEXIS 500

Syllabus

<p>Contract — Performance—Province of court and jury.</p> <p>In au action on a contract for furnishing catalogue covers ornamented with lithographic work, it appeared that after the proof had been submitted defendant wrote to plaintiffs, “The print as now made will be satisfactory if the covers furnished will be equal to these in good effect.” Plaintiffs acknowledged this letter, quoting in effect its terms and stating that they would proceed to print. When the covers were delivered, the defendant found that the plaintiffs had added their imprint. The evidence showed that the defendant had been exceedingly careful in selecting a design for the covers, and was insistent that they should be absolutely satisfactory to him in every particular, and that this was known to plaintiffs. It also appeared that the plaintiffs had intentionally left the imprint off of the proof. Plaintiffs claimed that it was the custom of lithographers to submit proofs without the imprint and to put it on the finished work unless otherwise ordered. The trial judge left it to the jury to determine whether the difference between the proof and the finished work rendered the covers of appreciably less artistic attractiveness and usefulness for the purposes to which the defendant contemplated applying them. Held (1) that the action of the trial judge was error ; (2) that it was immaterial what the custom of the trade was, since it could not defeat the essential terms of the contract ; (3) that the defendant was entitled to binding instructions in his favor.</p>