into meat products which was the use for which they were intended.
14. Plaintiff paid defendant the agreed contract price of $ 5,980.70 for the pork trimmings.
15. Plaintiff promptly caused the pork trimmings to be picked over, washed and placed in a curing brine solution for salvage and, as a result, from the shipment of 25,301 pounds, 21,426 pounds were salvaged with an after-salvage value of $ .06 per lb.
16. At the time defendant loaded the pork trimmings on the car they were spoiled and unfit for the uses for which they were sold and intended.
17. Immediately following discovery of the spoiled condition of the pork trimmings, the plaintiff, through Mr. Zitin, on September 24, 1951 informed Mr. Hess of Hess-Stephenson by telephone of this condition.
18. The defendant first received notice indicative of a complaint about the condition of the pork trimmings in October 1951 by letter from Hess-Stephenson which requested that information concerning the shipment be furnished to plaintiff. The information was furnished by defendant to plaintiff by letter dated October 29, 1951.
19. Defendant received notice from plaintiff of the actual nature of complaint by telephone on November 28, 1951, which defendant acknowledged by letter that day.
20. By reason of the unfitness of the pork trimmings for the uses for which they were sold and intended plaintiff suffered a loss of $ 4,695.14.
The plaintiff's evidence supports the conviction that the spoilage did not result from lack of proper measures of preservation after delivery of the product by the defendant to the carrier. Though the defendant submitted evidence to show the customary method of processing pork trimmings for ultimate shipment, it offered no evidence relating to the processing of the particular lot of which this shipment was a part. Since the spoilage, which was immediately evident on arrival, did not occur in transit, the inescapable inference is that the deterioration began before shipment by the defendant.
Though this sale was consummated through Hess-Stephenson & Co., the evidence does not support the plaintiff's contention that this Company was the defendant's agent. Hess-Stephenson & Co. represented itself to be a broker and its written confirmation of the transaction so indicated. Plaintiff's telephoned direction to Mr. Hess to buy the pork trimmings was not inconsistent with such brokerage relationship. That direction was the plaintiff's offer to buy which was accepted when he written confirmation of sale was sent from Chicago to the plaintiff in Philadelphia. A contract exists by force of the law of the place where the last act necessary to the completion of the formation of the contract was done and, hence, this contract was an Illinois contract. 1 Williston on Contracts § 97.
Illinois has adopted the Uniform Sales Act, Ill.Rev.Stat.1955, c. 121 1/2, § 1 et seq. Section 49 of that Act requires that notice of breach be given within a reasonable time. The plaintiff gave defendant notice of the actual details of the breach two months and four days after delivery of the defective product. During this period the plaintiff, uncertain of the cause of the spoilage and believing that it occurred in transit, was investigating the carrier's possible liability. It is not unreasonable to infer that defendant was put on notice that the shipment to the plaintiff was in some respect unsatisfactory when, prior to October 29, 1951, Hess-Stephenson requested defendant to furnish plaintiff with information about the handling of the car which transported the product. Under these circumstances and since lack of earlier notice in no way prejudiced the defendant, the notice to defendant on November 28, 1951 was given within a reasonable time.
Conclusions of Law
1. The court has jurisdiction of the parties.
2. The court has jurisdiction of the subject matter.
3. The contract of sale is controlled by the law of Illinois.
4. Under all the circumstances plaintiff gave defendant notice of the spoiled condition of the pork trimmings within a reasonable time.
5. The plaintiff is entitled to recover its loss, with interest, from the defendant.
Judgment will be entered for the plaintiff upon submission by counsel of an appropriate form of judgment.
© 1992-2004 VersusLaw Inc.