Societe Anonyme Pour La Fabrication De La Soie De Chardonnet v. Loeb, Lipper & Co.

Citations

• 239 Pa. 264
• 86 A. 798
• 1913 Pa. LEXIS 550

Syllabus

<p>Contracts — Written contract — Construction—Compromise.</p> <p>1. In an action to recover a balance due for merchandise sold and delivered, it appeared that defendants had objected to the quality of certain of the goods already in their possession, and had declined to receive certain other goods at the custom house, and that the defendants had then written to plaintiff offering to take such of the goods at the custom house as they might determine, at a specified reduction, to which plaintiff had replied that it would accept this proposal, but that defendants must keep the whole of that which they had received, which offer of the plaintiff was accepted and acted upon. Held, the reduction specified applied only to the goods in the custom house, and not to the goods which the defendants had already received into their possession.</p> <p>2. Where negotiations between the parties to a contract are in writing, the interpretation of the agreement is exclusively for the court.</p> <p>3. Where, in such a case, defendants had written to plaintiff, stating “We enclose herewith a check on Paris for Fr. 25.08 in settlement of the amount still due to you according to the statement of account enclosed, which you will kindly carry to the credit of our account,” and plaintiff had replied immediately, stating that it had placed the amount received to the credit of defendants’ account, but that the same was not accepted in settlement, it was held that the transaction did not constitute an accord and satisfaction, and that plaintiff was not precluded from suing to recover the balance due from the defendants.</p>