Bechtold v. Murray Ohio Manufacturing Company
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mr. Justice Linn,
Tbe question is whether a no-damage clause in tbe contract bars recovery. The appeal is from judgment for defendant notwithstanding the verdict for plaintiff. By writing, August 29,1932, plaintiff agreed to purchase from defendant 300 Hannon Stokers, also referred to as automatic stoker with blower, for $75 each on specified terms of payment, delivery, etc. The parties agreed that the stoker should be “in accordance with the sample installed at [defendant’s plant where plaintiff inspected it] and approved by the Purchaser on August 16, 1932.” He received all that he…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Hill & MacMillan, Inc. v. TaylorSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1931
- Helvetia Copper Co. v. Hart-Parr Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1919
- Rose-Derry Corp. v. Proctor & Schwartz, Inc.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1934
- Mayfield v. George O. Richardson MacHinery Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1921
- Westbrook v. Reeves & Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1907
3Cited by8 opinions
- Jarnot v. Ford Motor Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1959
- Wedner v. Fidelity Security Sytems, Inc.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1973
- Great Northern Insurance v. ADT Security Services, Inc.District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · 2007
- Traylor Engineering & Manufacturing Co. v. National Container Corp.Superior Court of Delaware · 1949
- Runco v. Brockway Motor Co., Inc.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1948
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.