Morris & Co. v. ATHAS

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Morris & Co. v. ATHAS

289 A.2d 758, 221 Pa. Super. 239, 10 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. (West) 816, 1972 Pa. Super. LEXIS 1507

CourtSuperior Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedApril 17, 1972

DocketAppeal, 414

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 289 A.2d 758 (Morris & Co. v. ATHAS) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Morris & Co. v. ATHAS, 289 A.2d 758, 221 Pa. Super. 239, 10 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. (West) 816, 1972 Pa. Super. LEXIS 1507 (Pa. Ct. App. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion by

Packel, J.,

The plaintiff-appellee properly contends that credibility was for the trial judge in his finding of $36,-196.08 in favor of the plaintiff-appellee on an oral contract and oral modifications and on alleged counterclaims with respect to services and materials furnished in renovating a restaurant. Burbage v. Boiler Engineering and Supply Co., 433 Pa. 319, 249 A. 2d 563 (1969). However, on one issue, the appellant asserts a proper basis for modification of the judgment.

Both sides admit that certain kitchen equipment was ordered and supplied pursuant to mutual assent, but without any agreement as to price. Under those circumstances, the Commercial Code, 12A P.S. §2-305 (1) (a), provides for payment of a “reasonable price.” The testimony shows that plaintiff paid $6,177.88 for the equipment and charged the defendant $9,715.00, which amount the court allowed. The only evidence of reasonable price for the equipment was an expert’s testimony that the fair price for a sale to a consumer was “approximately $9,000.” Under such circumstances, a sum larger than that figure should not have been awarded and the judgment should be modified by a credit of $715, together with interest thereon.

Judgment modified and as modified affirmed. Each side to pay own costs.

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

Opinion by

Packel, J.,

The plaintiff-appellee properly contends that credibility was for the trial judge in his finding of $36,-196.08 in favor of the plaintiff-appellee on an oral contract and oral modifications and on alleged counterclaims with respect to services and materials furnished in renovating a restaurant. Burbage v. Boiler Engineering and Supply Co., 433 Pa. 319, 249 A. 2d 563 (1969). However, on one issue, the appellant asserts a proper basis for modification of the judgment.

Both sides admit that certain kitchen equipment was ordered and supplied pursuant to mutual assent, but without any agreement as to price. Under those circumstances, the Commercial Code, 12A P.S. §2-305 (1) (a), provides for payment of a “reasonable price.” The testimony shows that plaintiff paid $6,177.88 for the equipment and charged the defendant $9,715.00, which amount the court allowed. The only evidence of reasonable price for the equipment was an expert’s testimony that the fair price for a sale to a consumer was “approximately $9,000.” Under such circumstances, a sum larger than that figure should not have been awarded and the judgment should be modified by a credit of $715, together with interest thereon.

Judgment modified and as modified affirmed. Each side to pay own costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

289 A.2d 758, 221 Pa. Super. 239, 10 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. (West) 816, 1972 Pa. Super. LEXIS 1507, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/morris-co-v-athas-pasuperct-1972.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack