Tee Pee Fence & Railing Corp. v. Olah

OPINION OF THE COURT

Roberta L. Dunlop, J.

After trial, judgment is for the defendant.

The court sets forth the following as its finding of facts and conclusion of law.

The credible evidence adduced during this nonjury trial de novo held on June 12, 1989 established that on July 11, 1988 *331Fred Rosenthal, a salesman for the plaintiff, went to the house of Louis Olah who is the defendant in this action. Fred Rosenthal, on behalf of Tee Pee Fence and Railing Corporation and Louis Olah signed an agreement for the purchase and installation of three security storm doors. Tee Pee Fence and Railing…