Seth Thomas Clock Co. v. Dobbins
Seth Thomas Clock Co. v. Dobbins
Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
The learned judge directed a verdict for the plaintiff. In this he committed error. There-were certainly two questions which should have been submitted to the jury. The first was whether the nineteen days during which the defendant waited to receive an answer to his order for the work, before giving notice of rescission, was a reasonable time. If it was, his act of rescission barred the plaintiff’s right of recovery, since the defendant’s letter of July 9 was a request to do work, not a reply closing a proposition theretofore made by the plaintiff.
The second was, whether the charge of the plaintiff was excessive in the number of hours alleged to have been expended upon the work. The defendant qualified himself to speak as one having special knowledge respecting the work ordered. He should have been permitted to. testify on this point. Having so testified, it was for the jury to say whether an excessive amount of time had been expended. The clock movements were purchasable in the retail market for $2.50 a piece. The charge of $30.00 for making some alterations in two of them, in connection with the plaintiff’s testimony, raised a question of fact that the jury should have been permitted to pass upon.
The assignments of error are sustained, the judgment is reversed and a venire facias de novo is awarded.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- Seth Thomas Clock Company v. Dobbins
- Cited By
- 1 case
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- Contract — Acceptance of offer — Reasonable time — Question for jury. Where a person gives an order by letter to a clock manufacturing company to alter two certain clock movements, and after waiting nineteen days for an acceptance of the order, rescinds the order, the question whether the nineteen days is a reasonable time is for the jury. Contract — Evidence—Excessive price — Question for jury. In an action to recover the cost of alteration of two clock movements, where it appears that the retail price for the movements was $2.50 a piece, and the defendant is charged $30.00 for making the alterations, the defendant should be permitted to testify as to the reasonableness of the charge, after he has qualified himself to speak, as one having special knowledge respecting the work ordered, and his testimony in connection with the other testimony should then be submitted to the jury to pass upon.