Beymer Banman Lead Co. v. Haynes

• Decision Date: 08 December 1888
• Citation: 81 Me. 27,16 A. 326
• Parties: BEYMER BANMAN LEAD CO. v. HAYNES et al.
• Court: Maine Supreme Court

16 A. 326

81 Me. 27

BEYMER BANMAN LEAD CO.

v. HAYNES et al.¹

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.

December 8, 1888.

Case reported from supreme judicial court, Penobscot county. Assumpsit for goods sold and delivered. Plea, general issue, with account in set-off.

Chas. H. Bartlett, for plaintiff. Barker, Vose & Barker, for defendants.

PETERS, C. J. There are differences between the parties as to the construction of certain correspondence between them concerning the sale and delivery of amounts of white lead, and a resort was had to the testimony of experts in the trade to ascertain the meaning of certain short expressions and abbreviations in the correspondence which would not explain themselves. The defendants, expecting the arrival of the plaintiffs' agent, with whom they were to make more definite terms, telegraphed the plaintiffs in these words: "Will you protect and guaranty us on lead until your agent gets here? We are offered inducements." The answer was, "Yes." The plaintiffs contend that this meant that, until other arrangements should be personally made by the agent, the lead forwarded should be priced as cheaply as the same article was sold by them to any one else, while the defendants' construction is that the price should be as low as any other party would have sold the same thing to them. We are satisfied that the meaning of the expression was that the plaintiffs would sell as low as the most favorable market price at the time. Other sales or offers which were exceptionally low for special reasons, not representing or reflecting fair market price, would not govern. Offers have not the force of sales. We are further satisfied that plaintiffs' prices were not an overcharge, but fair, and reasonably low. There is a difference as to how long the contract before named would continue in case the agent did not arrive according to the anticipation of the parties. He failed to go to Bangor where the defendants resided. We see no materiality in this minor issue, discussed on briefs of counsel, inasmuch as the parties, in the absence of the agent, settled the terms of the contract by letters between themselves. But the meaning of this lastly-made contract is in contention. The defendants contend that the bargain was for lead, "5 1/2, less 2 1/2, 60 days;" or, in other words, that the lead was to be 5 1/2 cents per pound, with 2 1/2 per cent. discount on the prices if paid in 60 days, with interest after that time; while the plaintiffs more...