Legal Opinion

Foss-Hughes Co. v. Norman

Superior Court of Delaware

Decided February 12, 1923No. 207PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Rodney, J.,

delivering the opinion of the court:

It is contended by the plaintiff that his previously existing contract to purchase the motor vehicle was rescinded by the subsequent correspondence; that thereafter the Foss-Hughes *110Company simply retained the deposit, theretofore made, to be applied on account of the purchase price of a motor, vehicle in case he, Norman, subsequently decided to purchase one, but that there was no liability upon him to make such purchase. The plaintiff contends, in short, that the pre-existing contract was rescinded by mutual consent as evidenced by the…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Hansbrough v. PeckSupreme Court of the United States · 1867
  2. Bacon v. CobbIllinois Supreme Court · 1867
  3. Miller v. SteenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1866
  4. Rhoades v. Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Co.West Virginia Supreme Court · 1901
  5. Pierce v. StaubSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1906

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

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Lee Builders, Inc. v. WellsCourt of Chancery of Delaware · 1952
  2. Thach v. DurhamSupreme Court of Colorado · 1949
  3. Lee Builders v. WellsCourt of Chancery of Delaware · 1952
  4. Simms v. BoveeDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1949

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

Powered by the Exa API