Legal Opinion

Ross v. Faber

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided December 3, 1957Published

1Opinion of the CourtCurrie, J.

The indebtedness of Faber to Ross in the sum of $115.29 is not disputed, but it is conténded by Faber that he is entitled as a matter of iaw to recover on his counterclaim the sum of $150, against which the $115.29 is to be offset. This is because Faber’s testimony, that the value of the purchased truck with the admitted defect in the rear-axle .housing was $150 less than the agreed purchase price, is not directly controverted in the record. •

Sec. 121.69 (-7), Stats., provides that, where the buyer ■ retains the goods, and sets up breach of warranty by way of recoupment in diminution on…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Studebaker Corporation v. NailCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1950
  2. Cannon v. PULLIAM MOTOR CO.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 1956
  3. Runco v. Brockway Motor Co., Inc.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1948
  4. Wall v. Britton Stevens Motors Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1925
  5. Kolodzcak v. Peerless Motor Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1931

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

Powered by the Exa API