The opinion of the court was delivered by: BARD
This is an action for damages in the amount of $3,531.95 for breach on oral contract. I make the following special
1. Plaintiffs are residents of Pennsylvania and defendant is a resident of New Jersey.
2. In and prior to October 1941, defendant was engaged, under the name of Insurance Advisory Bureau, in the business of giving advice and recommendations to owners of life insurance policies with respect to changing their life insurance programs so as best to meet their needs.
3. On or about October 9, 1941, plaintiff Michael Karpchuk left twelve life insurance policies owned by plaintiffs at defendant's office for study and recommendations.
4. On October 13, 1941, the three plaintiffs went to defendant's office to discuss defendant's recommendations and were advised that they had been overpaying on their policies and were entitled to a refund and a reduction of future premiums.
5. Defendant advised plaintiffs that if they paid to defendant the sum of $198, defendant could obtain for them from their insurance company a refund of at least $1400 in cash and could effect a reduction of their total premiums annually of at least $100 without in any way changing their policies.
6. Plaintiff Michael Karpchuk signed a written agreement to pay this sum to defendant for his advice and recommendations and also signed a power of attorney authorizing defendant to make any changes in the plaintiffs' life insurance program.
7. At the same time, on October 13, 1941, plaintiff Michael Karpchuk signed a blank printed form, later filled in by the defendant, requesting the insurance company to make a number of changes in the policies of the plaintiffs.
8.The plaintiffs paid to defendant the sum of $190 on account of the agreed price of $198.
9. On October 14, 1941, defendant advised plaintiffs that their policies had been sent to the home office of the insurance company to effect a number of specified changes.
10. Plaintiffs thereupon called at defendant's office and protested against defendant's making any changes in their policies on the ground that this was not in accordance with the advice given them by the defendant.
11. Defendant advised plaintiffs that the refund and premium reduction could not be effected unless the ...