Leber v. Grosvenor
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
. Two actions OP conteact to recover respectively $402 and $251.40 paid for advertising the defendants’ Bel-cap-sic plasters in the Argentine Republic.
Read the full summary
. Two actions OP conteact to recover respectively $402 and $251.40 paid for advertising the defendants’ Bel-cap-sic plasters in the Argentine Republic. Writs dated respectively June 2,1899, and November 13,1900. The respective answers set up a contract in writing, to which the agreement under which the plaintiffs had done the advertising had been annexed, in which the plaintiffs agreed to introduce the defendants’ plasters in the Argentine Republic, Uruguay and Paraguay, and alleged that the plaintiffs had failed to perform their agreement and had not introduced the plasters in the republics…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court.
The undertaking to introduce the defendants’ goods did not mean that the plaintiffs warranted that those goods should become popular with the public and should be purchased generally. What it meant was shown by the specific agreement “to use due diligence in the introduction,” etc." It was satisfied if the goods were put on the market, brought to the attention of the public, and an effort made to induce the public to purchase them. There was evidence warranting a finding that this was done.
Exceptions overruled.
2Cited by2 opinions
- Neal v. State Ex Rel. Attorney GeneralSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1929
- York County Savings Bank v. WentworthSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1939