Cousins v. Roy

2 Citing cases

  1. Werner v. Montana

    117 N.H. 721 (N.H. 1977)   Cited 18 times
    Noting that "other courts have held, and commentators agree, that rescission and revocation of acceptance amount to the same thing under the Uniform Commercial Code, particularly since cancellation is a remedy available to a buyer who has established revocation of acceptance"

    As the master was able to consider the relevant portions of the survey report, we do not find any prejudice to defendant resulting from the introduction of this evidence by way of cross-examination rather than directly. Sullivan v. LeBlanc, 100 N.H. 311, 315, 125 A.2d 652, 655-56 (1956); Cousins v. Roy, 96 N.H. 126, 129, 71 A.2d 416, 418 (1950). Similarly, because of the extensive use of the report by defendant's counsel in cross-examining plaintiff, the master's ruling that the report was not admissible did not violate any principle of fairness to the defendant which might have required that the full report be admitted into evidence.

  2. Merchants Mut. Ins. Co. v. Simoneau

    312 A.2d 571 (N.H. 1973)   Cited 2 times

    In the circumstances the trial court's ruling was well within its discretion. See Cousins v. Roy, 96 N.H. 126, 71 A.2d 416 (1950). The plaintiff's contention, first advanced in this court, that the testimony of the defendants Hegarty and Simoneau was incredible as a matter of law cannot be adopted. Reliance is placed upon inconsistencies in their testimony, and between testimony on the witness stand and the extrajudicial statements made to the adjuster.