Legal Opinion · Dissent

Morefield Communications, Inc. v. Pursel Construction Co.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided December 23, 1986No. 46Published

1DissentBeck, Judge

The trial court found that the authentication diagrams were a necessary part of the materials to be delivered on the contract. This finding was crucial to the determination that appellee-materialman’s notice of non-payment was timely because the delivery of essential material pursuant to contract extends the notice period. See United States v. E.J.T. Construction Co., 453 F.Supp. 435 (D.Del.1978).

There was a conflict in testimony. Materialman’s witness testified that Pursel had indicated that the first electrical sub-contractor was not longer on the project and that Pur-sel “needed the…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. United States v. E.J.T. Construction Co.District Court, D. Delaware · 1978

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API