Spitz

Sulmock Furniture Manufacturing Co. v. Spitz

Good Law
120 Cal. App. 170·1932 Cal. App. LEXIS 83·7 P.2d 354
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJanuary 25, 1932Docket No. 7647.California621 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Atteridge, J.

Appellant, as plaintiff in the court below, sought by its action to recover the agreed purchase price of 200 radio cabinets which it had manufactured to the order of defendants. The terms of sale were for cash on delivery—otherwise stated, title was not to pass until the purchase price was paid. This is apparent both from the allegations of plaintiff’s complaint and its own conduct with respect to the goods as well. After a small number of the cabinets had been delivered, it expressly refrained from making further deliveries of the remaining balance of the order because payment therefor was not forthcoming, and filed this action for the agreed purchase price, which was $5,400, less a cash payment on account of $740.

During the pendency of the action, and while the remaining goods were in the possession of plaintiff, the same were totally destroyed by fire, and plaintiff received from various insurance concerns the sum of $3,400 in reimbursement of its loss as aforesaid. In its findings and judgment the trial court applied as determinative of the appropriate measure of damages, subdivision 2 of section 3311 of the Civil Code (as it existed prior to the recent adoption of the…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.