Legal Opinion

Hobart Manufacturing Co. v. Rodziewicz

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided October 21, 1936No. Appeal, 329PublishedCited by 15 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Baldrige, J.,

The plaintiff, under a written contract, dated December 4, 1934, sold to defendant a dough mixer, described therein as a “Hobart Model M-80,” together with certain equipment consisting of a bowl, dough arm and beater. The consideration of $978.50 was to be paid in monthly installments. The contract provided, inter alia, as follows:

“It is agreed this order shall not be subject to countermand or rescission by vendee, and that it covers all agreements concerning the transaction of every name and nature and no representation or agreements made by an agent, or any other…

2Cases cited22 opinions

  1. Bekkevold v. PottsSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1927
  2. Tinius Olsen Testing MacHine Co. v. Wolf Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1929
  3. Hill & MacMillan, Inc. v. TaylorSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1931
  4. Minneapolis Steel & MacHinery Co. v. Casey Land AgencyNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1924
  5. Colt Co. v. BridgesSupreme Court of Georgia · 1926

17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by15 opinions

  1. Frantz Equip. Co. v. the Leo Butler Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1952
  2. Frigidinners, Inc. v. Branchtown Gun ClubSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1954
  3. United States Gypsum Co. v. Birdsboro Steel Foundry & MacHine Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1947
  4. Demos Construction Co. v. Service Supply Corp.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1943
  5. Traylor Engineering & Manufacturing Co. v. National Container Corp.Superior Court of Delaware · 1949

10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API