Bobrick Chemical Co. v. Prest-O-Lite Co.

Good Law
160 Cal. 209·1911 Cal. LEXIS 506·116 P. 747
Supreme Court of CaliforniaJune 19, 1911L.A. No. 2692.California2,604 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

This action was instituted by plaintiff corporation, which is the assignee of G.A. Bobrick of a contract for a term of three years under which Bobrick agreed to furnish defendant, an Indiana corporation, eleven thousand sets of parts of tire-inflating apparatus (each set consisting of one valve, one coil, and one bushing), for a specified price per set, the defendant agreeing to order and pay for five thousand of said sets during the first year of the term, and three thousand of said sets during each of the second and third years of the term. The contract was dated December 6, 1906. By a provision contained therein, defendant at once ordered three thousand of said sets, at the scheduled price of $4.45 per set. On June 4, 1907, it notified both Bobrick and plaintiff that it canceled this agreement, and would not receive any more goods thereunder. It had then received 1137 of the three thousand sets ordered, which it retained and paid for. This action was brought to recover $8290.35 for the remaining 1863 sets of the three thousand sets ordered, which defendant refused to receive or pay for, and $23,600.00 loss of profits on the remaining eight thousand sets, caused by defendant's…

Addendum

The decision in this case was placed by the opinion solely on the ground that the device to be furnished by Bobrick under his contract failed to do and perform the work it was sold to do and perform, etc. Upon this point we see no reason for receding from the views set forth in the opinion. The opinion is erroneous in stating that there was evidence sufficient to sustain the conclusion that the devices covered by Bobrick's contract with defendant involved some features that were contained in the devices covered by the contract of the Air Oxygen Company with defendant, and that the latter contract was defendant's sole authority for the sale of any device containing such features. In view of the sole ground upon which the decision is based this error is not material, and does not warrant a rehearing. The petition for a rehearing is denied. *Page 217

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.