Johnson v. Freemann

Citations

• 160 Pa. 317
• 28 A. 780
• 1894 Pa. LEXIS 810

Syllabus

<p>Contract— Guaranty — Building Machine — Evfdence.</p> <p>Plaintiffs agreed to build for defendant a machine “ as per drawings and specifications ” furnished by defendant. Plaintiffs did not guarantee that the machine would do the work that it was intended to do. After the patterns had been examined, it was found that they were incomplete, and that the drawings relating to the locomotive part of the machine were defective. Plaintiffs then undertook, at defendants’ request, to furnish revised drawings and patterns to correct the imperfections. When the machine was completed, it was found that it would not do the work contemplated. Held that the agreement of plaintiffs to furnish the revised drawings and specifications did not operate to change the contract so as to make them responsible, if the finished machine did not do its work satisfactorily as a machine.</p> <p>Damages — Imperfect machine — Charge of court.</p> <p>In an action to recover the price of a machine where defendant claims that the machine was imperfect, it is not improper to charge on the question of damages that “if the defects are due to imperfect workmanship on the part of the plaintiffs, or to any want in the materials which they used in the construction of the machine, or if the parts which they were to design, and did design and construct, were not reasonably suitable for the purposes for which they were intended, the defendant would be entitled to deduct from the claim of the plaintiffs such an amount as he would be required to expend in repairs in putting the machine in the condition whicli was arranged for in the plans and designs. He would be further entitled to deduct from that claim the necessary expenses to which he has been put which were a result of those defects.”</p>