Finberg Mfg. Co., Inc. v. Carter
Decision Date | 14 October 1983 |
Citation | 455 N.E.2d 451,16 Mass.App.Ct. 1013 |
Parties | FINBERG MANUFACTURING CO., INC. v. Joseph CARTER. |
Court | Appeals Court of Massachusetts |
Edward John Mulligan, Warwick, R.I., for defendant.
Max Volterra, Attleboro, for plaintiff.
Before GRANT, GREANEY and SMITH, JJ.
RESCRIPT.
The defendant appeals from a judgment entered in the Superior Court as a result of a jury verdict, and contends that several errors were committed during the course of the trial. We affirm the judgment.
1. The judge was correct in denying the defendant's motions for a directed verdict and for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. Mass.R.Civ.P. 50(a), (b), 365 Mass. 814 (1974). The standard governing both motions is the same. D'Annolfo v. Stoneham Housing Authy., 375 Mass. 650, 657, 378 N.E.2d 971 (1978). The plaintiff introduced ample evidence with regard to both the written and oral agreements for the jury to conclude that the defendant committed a breach in refusing to pay the agreed price. Although the place of delivery was not specified in the written contract, the parties agreed orally that the silver would be delivered to the plaintiff's place of business and that the defendant would come and get it. The written agreement called for delivery between April 1 and April 14, 1980. There was no requirement in either the written or the oral agreement for additional notice to the defendant. The plaintiff had the silver ready for transfer and delivery between the dates specified in the written agreement, but the defendant made no effort to take delivery of the silver. The jury could consider, in regard to the defendant's conduct, the fact that the price of silver had dropped from $47.80 an ounce, the date the contract was signed, to $14.30 an ounce on April 15, 1980, the date of the breach.
2. The defendant's contentions that the judge erred in permitting the plaintiff to testify as an expert in regard to the silver market and in not allowing a witness called by the defendant to testify as an expert in regard to reasonable commercial practices regarding delivery and shipment of goods are without merit. It is well settled that Louise Caroline Nursing Home, Inc. v. Dix Constr. Corp., 362 Mass. 306, 309, 285 N.E.2d 904 (1972), quoting from Perkins v. Stickney, 132 Mass. 217, 218 (1882). Here, the record demonstrates that the plaintiff was suitably qualified to give an expert opinion. The defendant's witness, however, admitted that his business was cosmetics and that he had no experience with business practices in the buying and selling of precious metals, the area in which his opinion was being...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Flood v. Southland Corp.
...by the judge that the procedure was sufficient to alert the judge to the grounds of the objection. See Finberg Mfg. Co. v. Carter, 16 Mass.App.Ct. 1013, 1014, 455 N.E.2d 451 (1983). Cf. Simmons v. Yurchak, 28 Mass.App.Ct. 371, 379, 551 N.E.2d 539 (1990). Also, a postcharge objection to the ......
-
Sauvageau v. Detroit Diesel Corp.
...factual arguments presented below and has not shown why, as a matter of law, it was entitled to JNOV. See Finberg Mfg. Co. v. Carter, 16 Mass.App.Ct. 1013 (1983). We thus affirm the denial of the motion for JNOV. 7 Judgment affirmed. Order denying the Sauvageaus' motion for judgment notwith......
-
O'Malley v. Hamadi Al Tamimi
...of review for a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and a motion for directed verdict is the same. Finberg Mfg. Co. v. Carter, 16 Mass.App.Ct. 1013, 1013 (1983).8 The parties agree that each entered the consulting agreement personally, and not as representatives of a business en......
-
Finberg Manufacturing Co., Inc. v. Carter
...283 390 Mass. 1105 Finberg Manufacturing Co., Inc. v. Carter (Joseph) Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts. DEC 01, 1983 16 Mass.App. 1013, 455 N.E.2d 451. ...