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.

LECO VENDING COMPANY v. JOSEPH A. SULLIVAN T/A SULLIVAN'S PUB (03/21/80)

March 21, 1980

LECO VENDING COMPANY, INC.
v.
JOSEPH A. SULLIVAN T/A SULLIVAN'S PUB, APPELLANT



No. 2250 October Term, 1978, Appeal from the Decision and Order of the Court of Common Pleas - Civil Action- of Delaware County at No. 75-11294.

Before Cercone, P.j., Watkins and Hoffman, JJ. Cercone, P.j. concurs in the result.

Per Curiam:

Decision and Order of the court below affirmed on the opinion of Judge Jerome.

Cercone, P.J. concurs in the result.

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF DELAWARE COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW

LECO VENDING COMPANY, INC. v. JOSEPH SULLIVAN t/a SULLIVAN'S PUB

NO. 75-11294

In ASSUMPSIT

Rodger L. Mutzel, Esquire, for the Plaintiff Robert T. Seiwell, Esquire, for the Defendant

JEROME, J.

FILED: SEP. 7, 1978

Plaintiff commenced an action In Assumpsit to recover damages allegedly incurred as a result of defendant's breach of certain obligations that he had undertaken pursuant to certain contracts. The matter was heard before the Court sitting without a jury who found in favor of plaintiff. Exceptions were then filed pursuant to Rule 1038(d) of Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure which were dismissed by the Court en banc by Order dated July 20, 1978. An Appeal has been taken to the Superior Court necessitating this Opinion.

The evidence reveals that on August 29, 1974, the parties entered into three contracts for the installation of certain vending machines. Specifically, a cigarette machine, amusement machine and music machine were to be installed at defendant's premises. The contracts provided that they were exclusive and the use of similar machines at the premises was a violation. At the time the contracts were entered into, the sum of $1,500.00 was lent by plaintiff to defendant, which amount was to be paid back out of commissions. At the time of this litigation it was agreed by all that said $1,500.00 had been paid back.

On July 7, 1975 the plaintiff learned that the defendant had installed other machines on his premises and was not using plaintiff's machines. When plaintiff as finally able to contact the defendant, defendant stated he had a different or better deal and had signed a similar contract with a competitor. Thereupon defendant signed a written request that plaintiff remove the three machines ...


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.