Lord Co. v. Industrial Dyeing & Finishing Works

Citations

• 252 Pa. 421
• 97 A. 573
• 1916 Pa. LEXIS 631

Syllabus

<p>Contracts — Construction—Agreement that work shall he “satisfactory</p> <p>1. A term of a contract providing that work done shall be “satisfactory” does not necessarily mean satisfactory to the other party, but may mean that it must conform to the usual standards of such work.</p> <p>2. Where plaintiff erected a water softening plant for defendant under a contract providing that plaintiff would “furnish such chemicals as shall be required for a thorough and satisfactory treatment of this well water,” and which contained specifications for the erection of such plant, the word “satisfactory” so used is not to be construed to mean satisfactory to the defendant, but merely that the plant erected should conform to the usual standards of such plants, and the lower court in an action on the contract, in which the plaintiff recovered a verdict, erred in entering judgment for defendant n. o. v.</p> <p>Singerly v. Thayer, 108 Pa. 291, distinguished.</p>