Lo Bosco v. Resnitzky

Decision Date22 July 1938
Docket NumberNo. 408.,408.
PartiesLO BOSCO v. RESNITZKY.
CourtNew Jersey Supreme Court

Syllabus by the Court.

In a suit by the purchaser of furniture for damages because of failure to make delivery, whereby the purchaser was compelled to buy elsewhere at an allegedly higher price, where it appeared that the first purchase was on a cash basis and the second on the instalment plan, held, that this evidence provided no proper ground for the assessment of damages.

Appeal from District Court.

Suit by Nancy Lo Bosco, also known as Nancy Corrier, against Abraham Resnitzky, trading as the Metropolitan Furniture Company, for damages for failure of defendant to deliver certain furniture contracted to be purchased, so that plaintiff was compelled to buy furniture elsewhere at a higher price. From a judgment in favor of the plaintiff, the defendant appeals.

Judgment reversed and cause remanded for a new trial.

Argued May term, 1938, before TRENCHARD, PARKER, and PERSKIE, JJ.

Joseph Moritz and Saul Nemser, both of Jersey City, for appellant. Archie Elkins, of Jersey City, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

>

The suit is for damages brought by a customer of a retail furniture store against the proprietor thereof because of failure to deliver certain furniture contracted to be purchased and on which a deposit had been made, by reason whereof the plaintiff had been compelled to go elsewhere and buy some of the furniture at a higher price.

The plaintiff's version of the affair was that, in contemplation of her approaching marriage, she visited the store of the defendant for the purpose of buying the furniture in question, and as it was not in stock she accompanied the salesman to certain wholesale houses to select from their showrooms what she desired. This seems to have been done and she paid One Hundred Dollars on account and received a memorandum specifying various articles at a total price of $525 and a balance of $425 payable C. O. D. This was in August of 1937 and she testified that she told the salesman that she expected to be married November 28th and that delivery was to be made as soon as the defendant was notified, but that shortly after she gave notice that the furniture was required, she received a letter from the salesman, which was put in evidence, stating that the order could not be filled "as other complications have come up with the manufacturers of the merchandise you selected", and enclosing a check for the One Hundred Dollars...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Sliger v. R. H. Macy & Co.
    • United States
    • New Jersey Supreme Court
    • December 6, 1971
    ...v. Ruffner, 66 U.S. (1 Black) 115, 17 L.Ed. 38 (1861); see also Durant v. Banta, 27 N.J.L. 624 (E. & A.1838); Lo Bosco v. Resnitzky, 120 N.J.L. 495, 200 A. 1010 (Sup.Ct.1938). This fact suggests the wisdom and fairness of leaving the issue with the Legislature, the author of the usury We ha......
  • Johnson v. Anderson, A--657
    • United States
    • New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division
    • October 5, 1955
    ...the Price of articles bought on the installment plan is more than the price of the same when bought for cash. Lo Bosco v. Resnitzky, 120 N.J.L. 495, 496, 200 A. 1010 (Sup.Ct.1938). We find, too, a statute regulating retail installment contracts, which requires a statement in or accompanying......
  • Peelle Co. v. Indus. Plant Corp.
    • United States
    • New Jersey Supreme Court
    • July 22, 1938
    ...previous sale, and if that was so, section 25 of the Sale of Goods act did not apply. The record shows that the trial judge recognized the 200 A. 1010 situation and carefully and rightly submitted the pertinent questions to the jury. It follows, of course, that the motion for a direction of......
  • Lo Bosco v. Resnitzky, 405.
    • United States
    • New Jersey Supreme Court
    • July 28, 1939
    ...made the second sale to plaintiff "as to whether the furniture so sold to plaintiff was on a C. O. D. basis or a time basis." 120 N.J.L. 495, 200 A. 1010, 1011. The first point made is that there was error in the denial of defendant's motion "for a direction of verdict and in rendering a ve......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT