Keller v. Gomery-Schwartz Motor Car Co.

Citations

• 253 Pa. 507
• 98 A. 690
• 1916 Pa. LEXIS 878

Syllabus

<p>Practice, Q. P. — Trials—Evidence—Repetition—Exclusion.</p> <p>1. The exclusion of relevant evidence does not constitute error where every fact contained in the excluded evidence has already been expressly conceded on cross-examination and it is apparent that no material harm could have been done by refusing to permit the reiteration of the matter previously admitted.</p> <p>Contracts — Automobile agency — Rescission — Measure of clam-ages — Case for jury.</p> <p>2. In an action against a motor ear company, to recover damages for breach of a contract constituting plaintiff defendant’s sales agent for a period of one year, wherein it was provided that plaintiff should purchase 45 cars from defendant during such time, the case is for the jury and a verdict and judgment for the plaintiff will be sustained where it appears that during the Second month defendant rescinded the contract, and, while it was highly problematical whether plaintiff would have made any profit on the contract, it appeared that the business of his agency was organized with an experienced and successful salesman on his staff, and the court could not say as a matter of law that plaintiff would have made no profits, had he continued in the business.</p>