Education would insist on taking a discount on the contract price as a condition of allowing the furniture to remain in the schools, this because Westmoreland's product was not only defective but because it also failed to conform to specifications in some particulars. The second part of the problem arose from the fact that Willred had been compelled to repair a lot of the furniture and to incur expense in doing so. Unquestionably an agreement was reached at the conference. The dispute between the parties is only as to its scope.
The defendant contends that the entire controversy about the furniture, including the claim for repairs, was settled by an agreement on its part to pay 75% Of 7% (the anticipated discount) on Willred's sales price to New York. The plaintiff contends that the agreement covered only the discount and did not cover repairs. It avers that the defendant agreed to pay, in addition to 75% Of the New York discount, 75% Of the cost of the repairs to the furniture, labor to be charged at $ 1.35 an hour, plus 10%.
I accept the plaintiff's version of the agreement. On February 22, Westmoreland issued a credit memorandum for 'Adjustment of billings to N.Y. City' covering 75% Of the 7% New York discount. On the 23rd the defendant wrote a letter referring to the repair costs and stating 'Upon completion of this work we shall review your charges and make settlement at that time'. If the credit memorandum of February 22 was intended, as the defendant now contends, to cover the whole dispute, the writing of such a letter seems to me to be inexplicable. It is, however, entirely consistent with the plaintiff's version of the transaction.
Willred was given credit in its account with Westmoreland for 75% Of 7% On its New York sales price, and as to that item, therefore, there was an accord and satisfaction. There was no satisfaction as to any other item of the plaintiff's claim upon which this action was brought.
In the foregoing opinion I have stated, and found, such facts as appear to me to be necessary in order to dispose of the issue of liability. The parties have presented numerous requests for findings of fact. These have been extremely helpful in calling my attention to everything in the case that has any bearing upon the issue before me and I have given them careful consideration, but I do not feel that it is necessary to answer them seriatim. The requests for conclusions of law contain many propositions which are correctly stated but which, so far as the facts as found in this case are concerned, have no application. Such of them as are applicable, I believe, have been fully covered by the discussion contained in the opinion.
Judgment may be entered in favor of the plaintiff upon the separate issue of liability.