Solar Elec. Corp. v. Exterminator Corp. of America
| Decision Date | 06 February 1956 |
| Parties | SOLAR ELECTRIC CORPORATION, a Delaware Corporation, Appellant, v. EXTERMINATOR CORPORATION OF AMERICA, a Pennsylvania Corporation. |
| Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
Mitchell W. Miller, Levi, Mandel & Miller, Philadelphia, for appellant.
Stephen J. Korn, Nathan L. Posner, Fox, Rothschild, O'Brien & Frankel, Philadelphia, for appellee.
Before STERN, C. J., and STEARNE, JONES, BELL, MUSMANNO and ARNOLD, JJ.
The plaintiff company sued in assumpsit to recover, under count 1, for the defendant's failure to pay for goods sold and delivered, consisting of a certain quantity of insecticide lamps and, under count 2, for a loss of profits due allegedly to the defendant's breach of a written contract for the purchase and sale of 1,000,000 insecticide lamps.
The case was tried to the court without a jury. At the conclusion of the plaintiff's case the defendant moved for a compulsory nonsuit. A recess for lunch was taken without any ruling by the trial judge on the defendant's motion. Upon resumption of the trial and before any action by the court on the motion for nonsuit, counsel for defendant rested and presented a request for a directed verdict which the learned trial judge did not then act upon but granted the defendant's motion for nonsuit. In accordance with a local rule of court, the plaintiff, within the time limited therefor, filed exceptions thereto which the court subsequently dismissed and entered judgment for the defendant. We are persuaded from our examination of the record that the correct result was reached by the learned court below. The judgment will be affirmed on the following excerpts from the opinion of Judge Waters which adequately answer the appellant's contentions.
'Considering first count II, the plaintiff's claim is based on a writing of which a photostatic copy was offered as plaintiff's exhibit number 4. This writing appears to be an order form of the plaintiff, on which the printed name and address of the plaintiff have been obliterated and the name and address of the defendant inserted in typewriting. It is addressed to Solar Electric Corporation, the plaintiff, is marked 'Order No. 43260,' and calls for 1,000,000 60w ST19B1 Insecticide Lamps. It carries in typewriting the statement, 'This order is subject to a cancellation charge in event of a cancellation by us,' followed by a signature said to be that of Philip Rochlin. The order is undated but bears a rubber stamp purporting to show that it was received by the plaintiff on June 15, 1953.
'The plaintiff contends that one shipment of 5,040 lamps was made to the defendant under this order on July 29, 1953, but that no further shipments were madebecause of the defendant's failure to make payment for this and earlier deliveries of merchandise.
'We need not consider whether this writing constituted a valid contract between the plaintiff and the defendant or whether the defendant breched the contract because we have concluded that the plaintiff's proof of damages was wholly inadequate. The plaintiff's only witness was its treasurer, and his testimony on the subject of damages was confined to the reading of portions of a letter alleged to have been written by the plaintiff's general manager to the defendant setting forth an 'inventory of Exterminator raw material and finished lamps,' a copy of which is attached to the complaint as exhibit 'C'. The witness's testimony lacked the detail and personal knowledge of the transactions necessary to establish a claim for damages chargeable against the defendant for breach of contract.
'It is true that where there is a basis in the evidence for a reasonable computation of the damages suffered, considering the nature of the transaction, a verdict may be based thereon, though there may be involved some uncertainty about it; Weinglass v. Gibson, 1931, 304 Pa. 203 ; nevertheless, where damages are susceptible of being proved the amount must be established with certainty. Forrest v. Buchanan, 1902, 203 Pa. 454 . The evidence of damages submitted in the instant case is so vague and indefinite that any award based thereon would be mere speculation and conjecture.
'To support its claim under count I of the complaint, the plaintiff rested on its...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Aiken Industries, Inc. v. Estate of Wilson
...with a fair degree of probability establish a basis for the assessment of damages." See also Solar Electric Corporation v. Exterminator Corporation of America, 384 Pa. 233, 120 A.2d 533 (1956); Lambert v. Durallium Products Corporation, 364 Pa. 284, 72 A.2d 66 (1950); Hahn v. Andrews, 182 P......
-
Aiken Industries, Inc. v. Estate of Wilson
... ... v. International Environmental ... Corp., 427 Pa. 439, 235 A.2d 612 (1967) ... See also ... Solar Electric Corporation v. Exterminator Corporation of ... America, 384 Pa. 233, 120 A.2d 533 (1956); Lambert ... ...
-
Sonfast Corp. v. York Intern. Corp., Civ. A. No. CV-93-0904.
...third parties. Intermeat, 575 F.2d at 1024. Plaintiff has the burden of presenting proof of damages. Solor Electric Corp. v. Exterminator Corp. of Am., 384 Pa. 233, 120 A.2d 533, 534 (1956). Furthermore, "where damages are susceptible of being proved the amount must be established with cert......
-
Elias v. Com., Dept. of Public Welfare, Polk Center
...be based on this evidence even though there may be some uncertainty as to the amount of the damages. Solar Electric Corp. v. Exterminator Corp. of America, 384 Pa. 233, 120 A.2d 533 (1956). Succinctly put, the law in allowing damages for breach of contract requires only reasonable certainty......