before it received notice of consumer's complaints that the wire in the rolls delivered to plaintiff by defendant and resold by plaintiff did not measure approximately 58 rods as represented.
24. Shortly after receiving notice of the claims by ultimate consumers that the wire in the rolls resold by plaintiff was not the approximate length represented by defendant, plaintiff gave notice to defendant of the claims of shortage.
25. By letter of November 16, 1943, defendant acknowledged plaintiff's claim of a shortage in the measurement of the rolls of wire and assured it that an adjustment would be made to its satisfaction.
26. As a result of shortage in the length of barbed wire on the rolls sold to it by the plaintiff, Ralston Purina Company, a customer of the plaintiff, brought action against the plaintiff in the Common Law Court of Florida, the Ninth Judicial Circuit of the Circuit Court of Orange County, No. 11722, and recovered a verdict against the plaintiff based on the aforesaid wire shortage in the amount of $ 2,807.19 which amount was paid by the plaintiff on February 4, 1947.
27. The evidence disclosed that plaintiff made adjustments with other of its customers who had purchased some of the rolls of barbed wire which plaintiff had obtained from the defendant. One of the factors entering into the adjustments was the shortage in the length of the barbed wire on the rolls purchased from plaintiff. There were, however, present in those adjustments other considerations including O.P.A. ceiling price adjustments and plaintiff has not established to what degree and in what amounts said adjustments were attributable to shortages in the length of wire.
28. The loss proved by the plaintiff which directly and naturally resulted from the shortage in length of wire is $ 2,807.19 with interest from February 4, 1947.
Conclusions of Law
1. The Court has jurisdiction of the parties and of the subject matter of this action.
2. The law of Pennsylvania governs the action.
3. Defendant breached its warranty to the plaintiff in the sale of the merchandise involved in this action.
4. Plaintiff gave reasonable notice to defendant of the breach of warranty, after it knew or should have known of the breach.
5. The measure of damages for said breach of warranty is the loss directly and naturally resulting to plaintiff in the ordinary course of events from the breach.
6. The loss established by the plaintiff is $ 2,807.19 paid by it on February 4, 1947.
7. Plaintiff is entitled to judgment in the amount of $ 3,670.40 including interest.
© 1992-2004 VersusLaw Inc.