Garst v. Harris
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
CoETBACT, for breach of the following agreement: “ For and in consideration of the per cent deducted from the full retail price# as per list appended hereto, allowed by the Phenyo Caffein Company, the vendee or retailer hereby agrees that he will not sell, nor allow any one in his employ to sell, directly or indirectly, Phenyo Caffein, 25 cent size, for less than 25 cents a single box, five boxes for one dollar, twelve boxes for two dollars and twenty-five cents, nor the 10…
Read the full summary
CoETBACT, for breach of the following agreement: “ For and in consideration of the per cent deducted from the full retail price# as per list appended hereto, allowed by the Phenyo Caffein Company, the vendee or retailer hereby agrees that he will not sell, nor allow any one in his employ to sell, directly or indirectly, Phenyo Caffein, 25 cent size, for less than 25 cents a single box, five boxes for one dollar, twelve boxes for two dollars and twenty-five cents, nor the 10 cent size for less than the face price. “ The vendee, or retailer, further agrees, that if he violates the terms of this…
1Opinion of the CourtHolmes, C. J.
This is an action of contract to recover $21
as liquidated damages for breach of an agreement not to sell Phenyo Caffein below a stipulated price. Phenyo Caffein was a proprietary medicine purchased by the defendant of the plaintiff. At the time of the sale and as a part of it a written statement of terms containing this agreement was read to the defendant and delivered to him. One stipulation expressed in the document was that the acceptance of the goods with the notice of the conditions of the sale should be an assent to the terms. The defendant accepted the goods and expressed no dissent.…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Fowle v. ParkSupreme Court of the United States · 1889
- Guerin v. StacyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1900
- Anchor Electric Co. v. HawkesMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1898
- Morse Twist Drill & Machine Co. v. MorseMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1869
- Gloucester Isinglass & Glue Co. v. Russia Cement Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1891
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by32 opinions
- Roto-Lith, Ltd. v. F. P. Bartlett & Co., Inc.Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1962
- A-Z Servicenter, Inc. v. SegallMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1956
- Corning Glass Works v. Ann & Hope, Inc. of DanversMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1973
- John D. Park & Sons Co. v. HartmanCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1907
- General Electric Co. v. Kimball Jewelers, Inc.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1956
27 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.