Philip J. Ritter Conserve Co. v. Kolb

Citations

• 62 Pa. Super. 296
• 1916 Pa. Super. LEXIS 411

Syllabus

<p>Contract — Bale—Articles for special purpose — Evidence.</p> <p>In an action to recover tbe contract price of 50,000 tin whistles, which were manufactured for the defendant by the plaintiff under a written order providing that they should be delivered as “soon as possible,” a judgment on a verdict for plaintiff will be sustained where it appears that the order was given on June 21st, that it took four weeks to make and assemble the necessary dies and materials for the whistles, that three weeks after June 21st a phone conversation took place, in which it was alleged that the defendant said that plaintiff should receive them on July 16th, that this was denied by plaintiff, that the whistles were of no value to any one but defendant and were tendered on August 31st and refused.</p> <p>' In such a case the' defendant cannot prove that he wanted the whistles for distribution under an advertising scheme on July 16th, without showing that plaintiffs knew of such a plan.</p>