Opinion
[No. 44, October Term, 1927.]
Decided January 11th, 1928.
Sale of Appliances — Action for Price.
In an action for part of the price of electric refrigerators, actually delivered, the fact that all of the number originally ordered were not delivered was not ground for directing a verdict for defendant, since the jury might find either that payments had not been made as agreed, so that there was no obligation to deliver the others, or that defendant did not notify the vendor to deliver such others, which notification was by the contract a condition precedent to an obligation to deliver.
In an action for the price of electric refrigerators, delivered and installed, held that it was a question for the jury whether they were "running satisfactorily," as required by the contract of sale.
The fact that, after part of the deliveries under a contract for the sale of electric refrigerators had been made, the vendor arranged with another to make the other deliveries on a profit sharing basis, was no defense to an action by the vendor for the price of the refrigerators delivered.
Decided January 11th, 1928.
Appeal from the Superior Court of Baltimore City (DAWKINS, J.).
Action by Harry S. Jenkins against George D. Iverson, Jr. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.
The cause was argued before BOND, C.J., URNER, ADKINS, OFFUTT, DIGGES, PARKE, and SLOAN, JJ.
Henry Zoller, Jr., for the appellant.
Frank J. Hoen, for the appellee.
Unreported cases.