Muskegon Co. v. Keystone Mfg. Co.

Citations

• 135 Pa. 132
• 19 A. 1008
• 1890 Pa. LEXIS 1158

Syllabus

<p>(a) Plaintiff company agreed to make curtain rollers for defendant company, and ship at its convenience. When the rollers were received parts of them were defective. Plaintiff then undertook to replace the defective parts, and with defendant’s consent entered into a contract with another maker to supply them. Before these parts were shipped, defendant countermanded the order:</p> <p>1. In such case, the plaintiff was entitled to a reasonable time to rep lace the parts; the contract between the plaintiff and the manufacturer was admissible in evidence; but a letter from the latter to the defendant was not admissible to show the want of due diligence on the part of the plaintiff in obtaining the new parts.</p> <p>2. The plaintiff company being required to ship the rollers at its own convenience, only, it was not error to refuse an offer on the part of the defendant company to prove that by reason of the plaintiff’s failure to supply rollers, such as were contracted for, the defendant’s factory and men remained idle and unemployed.</p> <p>3. Nor was it error to charge the jury that the measure of damages for the defendant’s refusal to perform its contract, was the contract price for the rollers, less what it would cost the plaintiff to deliver to defendant the parts to supply those which were defective, with interest from an average of the contract times of payment.</p>