Opinion
May 27, 1958.
June 30, 1958.
Contracts — Contract to manufacture goods under specifications — Failure to fix price — Subsequent determination of price — Cost plus ten per cent profit — Reasonableness — Lack of market price.
1. In this action of assumpsit in which it appeared that plaintiff, pursuant to a written purchase order, manufactured and delivered to defendant certain goods which were accepted as satisfactorily meeting the required specifications; and the only controversy between the parties was as to the reasonableness of the price charged by plaintiff; and it appeared that the purchase order provided that the prices to be charged were to be established between plaintiff's president and defendant's representative at a later date; and they were unable to agree upon a mutually satisfactory price; and the court below found that there was no market price and that the reasonable price for the merchandise was the exact cost to plaintiff of fabricating it plus a ten per cent profit, it was Held, in the circumstances, that the criterion applied by the court below in determining a reasonable price was the only fair standard to be applied.
Evidence — Competency — Hearsay — Witnesses — Credibility — Conviction of crime.
2. Where it appeared that defendant offered in evidence certain bids which it had received from others for the fabrication of the merchandise and the price it had paid to another subcontractor for a subsequent manufacture of similar merchandise; and the master refused to admit such evidence but ruled that the defendant could call witnesses, subject to cross-examination, to testify on these matters, but the defendant did not call any such witnesses, it was Held that the master had properly excluded the evidence as inadmissible hearsay.
3. The fact that after he testifies a witness is convicted of a crime is not admissible in evidence to impeach his credibility.
Argued May 27, 1958. Before JONES, C. J., BELL, MUSMANNO, ARNOLD, JONES and COHEN, JJ.
Appeal, No. 200, Jan. T., 1958, from judgment of Court of Common Pleas No. 6 of Philadelphia County, Dec. T., 1953, No. 6378, in case of Kuss Machine Tool Die Co., Inc. v. El-Tronics, Inc. Judgment affirmed.
Same case in court below: 13 Pa. D. C.2d 1.
Assumpsit.
Master's reports filed finding for plaintiff; exceptions to reports dismissed and judgment entered for plaintiff, opinion by HAGAN, P. J. Defendant appealed.
Donald W. Hedges, with him Arthur Gregg Jackson, Thomas F. Wilson, and Mancill, Cooney, Semans and Hedges, for appellant.
Leonard Turner, for appellee.
The judgment of the court below is affirmed on the able opinion of President Judge HAGAN of the Court of Common Pleas No. 1 of Philadelphia County.