Park v. Richardson-Boyington Furnace Co.
| Decision Date | 22 October 1895 |
| Citation | 91 Wis. 189,64 N.W. 859 |
| Parties | PARK ET AL. v. RICHARDSON-BOYINGTON FURNACE CO. |
| Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from circuit court, Langlade county; John Goodland, Judge.
Action by B. B. Park and others against the Richardson-Boyington Furnace Company. There was a judgment for plaintiffs, and defendant appeals. Reversed.
The plaintiffs bought of the defendant a furnace for heating their building. The furnace was warranted to work satisfactorily. It did not work satisfactorily. The plaintiffs brought this action to recover damages for the breach of the warranty. There was a jury trial, resulting in verdict and judgment for the plaintiffs, from which the defendant appeals. Error is alleged in the charge of the court as to the measure of damages. The court instructed the jury that, in case they found for the plaintiffs, “the plaintiffs will be entitled to recover the difference between the purchase price of the furnace * * * and its actual value.”Brown & Pradt, for appellant.
Alban & Barnes, for respondents.
When this case was here before (81 Wis. 399, 51 N. W. 572), it was said that the proper rule of damages for breach of the warranty of the furnace would be “the difference between its actual value and its value had it conformed with the warranty.” This is undoubtedly the true rule. Suth. Dam. (2d Ed.) § 670; Morse v. Hutchins, 102 Mass. 440. The rule stated by the trial court is not the equivalent of the true rule. The rule of the trial court deprives the purchaser of the profit of his bargain, if he has made a good one, and gives him an undue advantage, if he has made a bad one. The furnace may have been either cheap or dear, at the price paid, even if it had conformed to the warranty. If it was a bad bargain, aside from the defects complained of, the plaintiffs' damages are less than if it had been a good bargain. This consideration is an element in the rule of damages. The question of the value of the furnace, if it had conformed to the warranty, should have been left to the jury, as well as the question of its actual value. The defendant may have suffered by the error. The judgment of the circuit court is reversed, and the cause remanded for a new trial.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Studebaker Corporation of America v. Hanson
...in the giving of said instructions and were reversible error. (Mechem on Sales, Sec. 1817; Hook v. Stovall, 26 Ga. 704; Park v. Richardson Co. (Wis.) 64 N.W. 859; Douglas v. Moses, 65 N.W. 1004.) The true measure damages for breach of warranty is the difference between the value of the arti......
-
Dunck Tank Works, Inc. v. Sutherland
...of the tanks at the time of delivery. J. I. Case Plow Works v. Niles & Scott Co., 90 Wis. 590, 63 N.W. 1013;Park et al. v. Richardson & Boynton Co., 91 Wis. 189, 64 N.W. 859;J. Thompson Mfg. Co. v. Gunderson, 106 Wis. 449, 82 N.W. 299, 49 L.R.A. 859; Sec. 121.69(7), Stats. [4][5] Judgment w......
-
Forster, Waterbury & Co. v. F. Mackinnon Mfg. Co.
...Company v. Hetherington, 42 Wis. 622;J. I. Case Plow Works v. Niles & Scott Company, 90 Wis. 590, 63 N. W. 1013;Park v. Richardson & Boynton Co., 91 Wis. 189, 64 N. W. 859. The evidence is undisputed that the castings were necessarily subjected to great pressure in placing them on the woode......
- Hazen v. W. Superior Lumber Co.