Rouple v. M'Carty

1 S.C.L. 480
Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas·Decided May 15, 1795·Published

Opinion

The Court,

(present Waties and Bay, Justices,)

therefore, took this opportunity of mentioning that these kind of actions had become very frequent of late ; as it often happened that as soon as a purchaser got tired or disappointed in a bargain, he would then set up a pretext of this kind for recovering back his money. That juries had been very much in the habits of giving in such verdicts as had a tendency to rescind sales entirely, instead of making a reasonable abatement in the price so as to do justice to both [481] parties, without setting aside a bargain. They, therefore, recommended to the jury to consider seriously of this case, and not to slide too easily into a practice that really rendered almost all sales uncertain. They further laid it down as a good general rule, that wherever the case was a doubtful one, as the present, it was better to support contracts, than to vitiate, or set them aside.

Verdict for defendant.

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

Rouple v. M'Carty, 1 S.C.L. 480 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1795).

1 S.C.L. 480 (Rouple v. M'Carty) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.