Kocher

Kocher v. Cartman Tire Exchange

Good Law
108 Cal. App. 619·1930 Cal. App. LEXIS 272·291 P. 856
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaSeptember 29, 1930Docket No. 7303.California479 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Sturtevant, J.

As assignee the plaintiff sued to recover a judgment against the defendants on a claim for rubber tires. The defendants answered by denying the material allegations of the complaint and pleading a warranty made by the vendor. The trial court made findings in favor of the defendants and from a judgment thereon the plaintiff has appealed.

Among the findings so made by the trial court was one which was very broad, finding that the warranty was made, that it was breached and that the plaintiff might not recover. Plaintiff says that the finding is not supported by proper evidence. He calls to our attention written orders signed by the defendants in which the defendants ordered so many tubes of such and such sizes. Those orders were signed by the defendants and by a salesman of the seller, but the orders do not purport to be contracts. No word indicating a sale is used. They name no price nor prices nor the total amount of the goods purchased. They specify red tubes and sizes. Nothing more. It appears from one that the parties were dealing in tubes, but it does not appear that they were dealing in any particular tubes, automobile or others. Such orders were not contracts, they were but…

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.