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.

NOVELTY KNITTING MILLS v. JACK SISKIND AND FRANCIS SISKIND T/A BERNETTE TEXTILE COMPANY (03/16/83)

decided: March 16, 1983.

NOVELTY KNITTING MILLS, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
JACK SISKIND AND FRANCIS SISKIND T/A BERNETTE TEXTILE COMPANY, AND BERNETTE KNITWEAR COMPANY, JACK SISKIND, BUDDY SISKIND, BERNETTE TEXTILE COMPANY, BERNETTE KNITWEAR CORP., APPELLEES



No. 81-3-445, Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court, at No. 1982, October Term, 1978, filed June 27, 1980, affirming the Judgment of the Court Common Pleas of Philadelphia, at No. 1927, February Term, 1970, filed November 9, 1977.

COUNSEL

E. Daniel Larkin, III, David Berger, Philadelphia, for appellant.

Leonard Dubin, Philadelphia, for appellees.

Roberts, C.j., and Nix, Flaherty, McDermott, Hutchinson and Zappala, JJ. Larsen, J., did not participate in the consideration or decision of this matter.

Author: Mcdermott

[ 500 Pa. Page 434]

OPINION OF THE COURT

This is an appeal of a Superior Court order affirming a decision of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County which denied appellant, Novelty Knitting Mills, Inc. (hereinafter "Novelty") relief from a judgment following a non jury trial. We now affirm, 287 Pa. Super. 603, 428 A.2d 260.*fn1

The parties to this litigation were engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling sweaters in accordance with the terms of an informal arrangement into which they entered in 1968. Under the agreement, Novelty was the manufacturer and appellee, Bernette Knitwear Company,

[ 500 Pa. Page 435]

(hereinafter "Bernette") functioned as the contractor. A course of business was established wherein Bernette would design and order the sweaters and Novelty, after agreement on price and quantity was reached, would produce the sweaters.

The companies operated independently of each other. Novelty's plant remained available to fill the potential orders of other companies making the relationship continuous as the occasion arose or markets were available.

It is undisputed that in November 1969, Bernette purchased five tons of yarn and requested permission to store the purchase on Novelty's premises. Anxious to maintain good business relations, Novelty granted the request.

In February 1970, Novelty learned of Bernette's intention to remove the yarn from Novelty's plant in order to have it processed by another sweater manufacturer. In hopes of preventing the removal, Novelty filed an action in assumpsit against Bernette, relying on the doctrine of equitable estoppel. Both the trial ...


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.