Ensign & Co. v. Coffelt
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Benton Circuit Court; J. S. Maples, Judge; •1. When this case was tried before, this court held that the case was tried upon the wrong theory and in disregard of the facts that the rights of the parties must be determined by the written contract.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Benton Circuit Court; J. S. Maples, Judge; •1. When this case was tried before, this court held that the case was tried upon the wrong theory and in disregard of the facts that the rights of the parties must be determined by the written contract. The court again erred in its instructions to the jury. 35 Cyc. 274^5; Benjamin on Sales, 888-9, 893; 75 Ark. 503. 2. As to the right of recoupment for damages for breach of warranty, see 35 Cyc. 543-6-7. 3. Defendant was estopped. 26 Pac. 703; 114 N. W. 780. He waited too long after a discovery of defect. 53 Pac. 84; 68 Id. 202; 77 S. W.…
1Opinion of the CourtMcCulloch, C. J.
This is an action instituted by appellant to recover from appellee the amount of an alleged debt for the price of sale and installation of a private lighting plant. The apparatus was installed in appellee’s house and the written contract contained an undertaking on the part of the vendor to guarantee the apparatus for the period of one year, and also undertaking to remove the apparatus if it failed to come up to the guaranties. The defense offered by appellee was that the apparatus failed to do the work it was guaranteed to do and that there was a total failure of consideration. The case was…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Eminent Household of Columbian Woodmen v. HowleSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1916