Legal Opinion

Standard Cabinet Works v. Nathan

California Court of Appeal

Decided October 21, 1931No. Docket No. 6806Published

1Opinion of the Court

BISHOP, J., pro tem.

The judgment, which plaintiff recovered in this action, was for the balance due on its contract to remodel a fashion shop, less deductions made because of the faulty quality of the work done. The bone of contention on this appeal is an item of |350 which was deducted because of the installation of imperfect mirrors. The court found that there were “twenty-six defective mirrors, which are valueless and cannot be repaired” and that by reason thereof defendants had been damaged in the sum of $350. Plaintiff contends, rightly, we think, that the evidence does not support this…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Thomas Haverty Co. v. JonesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1921
  2. Dean v. HawesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1916
  3. Joseph Musto Sons-Keenan Co. v. Pacific States Corp.California Court of Appeal · 1920
  4. Pence v. DennieCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1919
  5. Norton v. MeyersCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1929

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

Powered by the Exa API