Kravitz v. Mudry

• Decision Date: 19 March 1963
• Citation: 200 Pa.Super. 240,189 A.2d 311
• Parties: Herman KRAVITZ and Libby Kravitz v. Joseph A. MUDRY, Appellant.
• Court: Pennsylvania Superior Court

189 A.2d 311

200 Pa.Super. 240

Herman KRAVITZ and Libby Kravitz v. Joseph A. MUDRY, Appellant.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

March 19, 1963.

Samuel E. Kratzok, Philadelphia, for appellant.

Frank Carano, Carano & Kunken, Philadelphia, for appellee.

Before RHODES, P. J., and ERVIN, WRIGHT, WOODSIDE, WATKINS MONTGOMERY and FLOOD, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

The judgment of the court below is affirmed on the opinion of Judge Burch of the County Court of Philadelphia.

The opinion of Judge BURCH follows:

This is an action in assumpsit. The parties on November 3, 1956, entered into a written agreement of sale for a house under construction at 1103 Chesworth Road, Philadelphia. The complaint avers that prior to entering into the agreement of sale the plaintiffs-purchasers pointed out to the defendant certain defects in materials and workmanship and in order to induce the plaintiffs to enter into the agreement of sale the defendant agreed to remedy the defects before settlement that the defects were not remedied and that plaintiff's refused to take title or make settlement; that the defendant agreed to remedy the defects and the plaintiffs made settlement in reliance upon this oral agreement of the defendant; that because of the failure of the defendant to remedy the defects the plaintiffs sustained damage to the extent of $3597.96.

After a lengthy trial before Judge Gilbert and a jury, there was a verdict for the plaintiffs. A new trial was granted by the Court en banc and the case was listed before the writer on September 27, 1961. At the bar of the court counsel entered into a stipulation providing that the case was to be submitted for decision as a case stated and that each party was to draw up a statement of his version of the case.

The plaintiffs set forth the facts as pleaded in the complaint with the provision that if the Court held that evidence of the alleged oral agreement of the defendant was admissible a finding is to be entered in favor of the plaintiffs in the sum of $3597.96 with interest thereon from January 22, 1957 and if such evidence is inadmissible a finding is to be entered in favor of the defendant.

The defendant's statement asserts the position that the evidence is inadmissible under the agreement of sale particularly because of the provision that the writing represents the entire agreement between the parties; that the seller is not responsible for any agreement, condition or...