Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

HARRY RUBIN & SONS v. CONSOLIDATED PIPE COMPANY AMERICA (07/24/59)

July 24, 1959

HARRY RUBIN & SONS, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
CONSOLIDATED PIPE COMPANY OF AMERICA, INC.



Appeals, Nos. 122 and 123, Jan. T., 1959, from order of Court of Common Pleas No. 1 of Philadelphia County, Sept. T., 1958, No. 777, in case of Harry Rubin & Sons, Inc. et al. v. Consolidated Pipe Company of America, Inc. et al. Order, as modified, affirmed. Assumpsit. Adjudication filed sustaining defendants' preliminary objections in part, and order entered, opinion by GRIFFITHS, J. Plaintiffs appealed.

COUNSEL

Alfred L. Luongo, with him Morris L. Weisberg, Goncer M. Krestal, and Blank, Rudenko, Klaus & Rome, for appellants.

Harry R. Kozart, with him Milton H. Weissman, and Weissman & Kozart, for appellees.

Before Jones, C.j., Bell, Musmanno, Jones, Cohen, Bok and Mcbride, JJ.

Author: Jones

[ 396 Pa. Page 507]

OPINION BY MR. JUSTICE BENJAMIN R. JONES

This is an appeal from the action of the Court of Common Pleas No. 1 of Philadelphia County, which

[ 396 Pa. Page 508]

    sustained, in part, the appellees'*fn1 preliminary objections to the appellants'*fn2 complaint in assumpsit.

Rubin-Arandell, in their complaint, alleged that on three different dates - August 22nd, 25th and 28th, 1958 - they entered into three separate oral agreements, all for the sale of goods in excess of $500, with one Carl Pearl, an officer and agent of Consolidated-Lustro, for the purchase of plastic hoops and materials for use in assembling plastic hoops, and that Consolidated-Lustro failed to deliver a substantial portion of the hoops and material as required by the terms of the oral agreements. The court below, passing upon Consolidated-Lustro's preliminary objections, held that two of the alleged oral agreements violated the statute of frauds provision of the Uniform Commercial Code*fn3 and were unenforceable. Rubin-Arandell contend that certain memoranda*fn4 (attached as exhibits to the complaint)

[ 396 Pa. Page 509]

    were sufficient to take both oral agreements out of the statute of frauds. Rubin-Arandell also contend that the court below erred in rejecting their claim for damages for loss of good will because of their inability to supply their customers with plastic hoops by reason of Consolidated-Lustro's breach of the agreements.

The statute of frauds provision of the Uniform Commercial Code, supra, states: " ยง 2-201. Formal Requirements: Statute of Frauds (1) Except as otherwise provided in this section a contract for the sale of goods for the price of $500 or more is not enforceable by way of action or defense unless there is some writing sufficient to indicate that a contract for sale has been made ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.