Speizman Knitting Machines Corp. v. Fretwell, 19988

• Decision Date: 08 April 1975
• Docket Number: No. 19988,19988
• Citation: 264 S.C. 168,213 S.E.2d 586
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court
• Parties: SPEIZMAN KNITTING MACHINES CORP., Respondent, v. A. A. FRETWELL, doing business as S Q Knits, and Commercial Credit IndustrialCorp., of which A. A. Fretwell is, Appellant.

Page 586

213 S.E.2d 586

264 S.C. 168

SPEIZMAN KNITTING MACHINES CORP., Respondent, v. A. A. FRETWELL, doing business as S Q Knits, and Commercial

Credit IndustrialCorp., of which A. A. Fretwell

is, Appellant.

No. 19988.

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

April 8, 1975.

Roy McBee Smith and Thomas E. Foster, Spartanburg, for appellant.

Richard A. Bigger, J., of Weinstein, Sturges, Odom, Bigger & Jonas, Charlotte, N.C., and Ward, Howell, Barnes & Long, Spartanburg, for respondent.

MOSS, Chief Justice:

A. A. Fretwell, the appellant herein, on September 21, 1971, purchased from Spezman Knitting Machines, the respondent herein, five knitting machines for a total sales price of $155,000. The sales price of each machine was $31,000 and shipping charges were $250 each or a total of $31,250. These machines were delivered to the appellant at his place of business in Cowpens, South Carolina, on or about November 1, 1971. Subsequent thereto, the appellant paid to the respondent the sum of.$93,750, representing the purchase price of three of the knitting machines plus shipping charges in the amount of $750.

Speizman instituted this action against the appellant alleging that there is still due and owing to it the sum of $62,000, representing the unit price of two knitting machines at $31,000 each, plus shipping charges in the amount of $500.

The appellant, by answer, admits the purchase from the respondent of five knitting machines for the consideration mentioned, and that it has paid to the respondent, for three of the knitting machines, the amount heretofore stated. It is then alleged that by the terms of the contract between the parties, the knitting machines were guaranteed to be in good operating condition and to operate properly and satisfactorily in the appellant's plant before the purchase price was due. It is also alleged that two of the knitting machines were rejected because they were in a damaged and defective condition at the time of delivery and because thereof payment was refused. The final allegation was that the appellant was not indebted to the respondent because the machines were not fit for the purpose for which they were purchased.

This case came on for trial before the Honorable Wade S. Weatherford, Jr., Presiding Judge, and a jury, at the 1974 May Term of the Court of Common Pleas for Spartanburg County and resulted in a verdict in favor of the respondent in the amount of $31,250, representing the purchase price and shipping charges for one of the knitting machines. This appeal followed.

At the conclusion of the court's instructions to the jury, the appellant, pursuant to Section 10--1210 of the Code, requested the trial judge to instruct the jury that a contract could be cancelled or mutually terminated by the parties. The trial judge refused this request and error is alleged.

In the testimony one of the knitting machines was described as the 'dropped machine,' the same having fallen through the wooden pallet upon which it was shipped and because of such was defective. The dispute as to this knitting machine was resolved by the jury and the appellant excused from making payment of the purchase price for...