The opinion of the court was delivered by: BECHTLE
This case was tried before the Court, sitting without a jury. The Court invited and received the supplemental memoranda of counsel and proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. The Court has examined the record, as well as the submitted memoranda, and herein makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law.
1. Plaintiff, Productos Metalicos "America" S.A., is a corporation incorporated under the laws of Mexico, with its principal place of business in Mexico City, Mexico.
2. Defendant, Microsonic Corporation, is a Pennsylvania corporation with its principal place of business in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
3. The amount in controversy, exclusive of interest and costs, exceeds $ 10,000.
4. In 1977, plaintiff was in the business of manufacturing watch cases, men's jewelry and jewelry boxes, and had been in such business for approximately 18 to 20 years prior thereto.
5. In 1977, defendant was engaged in the business of manufacturing and trading in electronic watches for worldwide distribution.
6. On October 11, 1976, a meeting took place in the offices of defendant between William A. Hilliard ("Hilliard"), General Manager of defendant, and Leo Kean ("Kean"), President of plaintiff, to explore the possibility of the parties doing business together. Defendant was looking for additional sources of supply of watch cases for its products, and plaintiff was looking for additional customers to purchase watch cases manufactured by it.
7. At the meeting, Hilliard gave to Kean six samples of watch cases currently being manufactured for defendant by existing suppliers (Ex. P-3). The purpose of this action was to enable defendant to obtain price quotations from plaintiff on said cases, in order that defendant could compare these prices with those from its existing suppliers, and determine if plaintiff's prices were favorable.
8. By letter dated December 29, 1976 (Ex. P-6), plaintiff gave its price quotation on two of the requested items, style numbers 3640 and 3715, and these prices were substantially less than those then being charged defendant by its existing suppliers.
9. On March 1, 1977, Kean met with Hilliard at defendant's offices in Philadelphia.
10. At that meeting, they continued to discuss the possible purchase by defendant from plaintiff of watch cases and Hilliard indicated an interest in doing business with plaintiff in the future.
11. At that meeting, Kean advised Hilliard that his company was a major watch case supplier for Timex and a major portion of plaintiff's production capacity was used for the Timex work. Kean said Timex had cancelled their orders and plaintiff was very seriously hurt financially and, therefore, needed additional business soon.
12. Kean pressed Hilliard for an order, but Hilliard advised him it was not possible for defendant to give him any orders unless defendant had a ...