Frank Trenkhorst Manufacturing Co. v. Peter

Appellate Court of Illinois

Frank Trenkhorst Manufacturing Co. v. Peter

182 Ill. App. 160, 1913 Ill. App. LEXIS 399

CourtAppellate Court of Illinois

DecidedOctober 9, 1913

DocketGen. No. 18,355

StatusPublished

This text of 182 Ill. App. 160 (Frank Trenkhorst Manufacturing Co. v. Peter) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Court of Illinois primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Frank Trenkhorst Manufacturing Co. v. Peter, 182 Ill. App. 160, 1913 Ill. App. LEXIS 399 (Ill. Ct. App. 1913).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Justice Gridley

delivered the opinion of the court.

Abstract of the Decision. 1. Sales, § 372*—when evidence as to price paid elsewhere, inadmissible. In an action for breach of contract to furnish certain materials and work, admission of testimony as to the price paid another party for same, without showing that such price was the reasonable and fair market price, held reversible error. 2. Sales, § 382*—measure of damages for breach, when buyer purchases elsewhere. In an action to recover the difference in price between the price for which defendant agreed to furnish "materials and the price actually paid another party on failure of defendant to perform, defendant cannot be charged with the difference in price on a greater amount of materials than he agreed to furnish.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Mr. Justice Gridley

delivered the opinion of the court.

Abstract of the Decision. 1. Sales, § 372*—when evidence as to price paid elsewhere, inadmissible. In an action for breach of contract to furnish certain materials and work, admission of testimony as to the price paid another party for same, without showing that such price was the reasonable and fair market price, held reversible error. 2. Sales, § 382*—measure of damages for breach, when buyer purchases elsewhere. In an action to recover the difference in price between the price for which defendant agreed to furnish "materials and the price actually paid another party on failure of defendant to perform, defendant cannot be charged with the difference in price on a greater amount of materials than he agreed to furnish.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

182 Ill. App. 160, 1913 Ill. App. LEXIS 399, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/frank-trenkhorst-manufacturing-co-v-peter-illappct-1913.