Gifford Wood Co. v. Chicago Coated Board Co.

Appellate Court of Illinois

Gifford Wood Co. v. Chicago Coated Board Co.

210 Ill. App. 259

CourtAppellate Court of Illinois

DecidedApril 16, 1918

DocketGen. No. 23,245

StatusPublished

This text of 210 Ill. App. 259 (Gifford Wood Co. v. Chicago Coated Board Co.) 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

Gifford Wood Co. v. Chicago Coated Board Co., 210 Ill. App. 259 (Ill. Ct. App. 1918).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Justice Hatchett

delivered the opinion of the court.

2. Sales, § 300*—when seller not in default under contract to install shafting. One who contracts to sell and install shafting in the plant of another is not in default where the time limit in the contract is extended for a valuable consideration, and, after the expiration of the time then limited but before the expiration of the number of days the seller was delayed, due to no fault of its own, the purchaser takes possession of the premises, the contract providing that the seller should not be liable for any “loss, damage or delay” caused by accidents or contingencies beyond its control. 3.. Contbacts, § 300*—when seller of shafting not liadle for damages for time plant is idle. Where a contract for the sale and installation of shafting provides that the shafting shall be procured by the seller from a certain manufacturer and that the contract shall be finished by a certain time, but the time for completion is extended before work is commenced and the seller learns that the manufacturer will be delayed in the furnishing of materials because of a breakdown in his plant before the time is extended and does not notify the purchaser until after the time is extended, he is not liable for damages for the days the plant is idle due to such delay, especially where the purchaser gets notice from the manufacturer within a day or two after the seller receives notice.

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

Mr. Justice Hatchett

delivered the opinion of the court.

2. Sales, § 300*—when seller not in default under contract to install shafting. One who contracts to sell and install shafting in the plant of another is not in default where the time limit in the contract is extended for a valuable consideration, and, after the expiration of the time then limited but before the expiration of the number of days the seller was delayed, due to no fault of its own, the purchaser takes possession of the premises, the contract providing that the seller should not be liable for any “loss, damage or delay” caused by accidents or contingencies beyond its control. 3.. Contbacts, § 300*—when seller of shafting not liadle for damages for time plant is idle. Where a contract for the sale and installation of shafting provides that the shafting shall be procured by the seller from a certain manufacturer and that the contract shall be finished by a certain time, but the time for completion is extended before work is commenced and the seller learns that the manufacturer will be delayed in the furnishing of materials because of a breakdown in his plant before the time is extended and does not notify the purchaser until after the time is extended, he is not liable for damages for the days the plant is idle due to such delay, especially where the purchaser gets notice from the manufacturer within a day or two after the seller receives notice.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

210 Ill. App. 259, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gifford-wood-co-v-chicago-coated-board-co-illappct-1918.