TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Arndt, Preston, Chapin, Lamb & Keen, Inc. v. L-M Manufacturing Co., Inc.

ARNDT, PRESTON, CHAPIN, LAMB & KEEN, Inc., v. L-M MANUFACTURING CO., Inc., Appellant

Arndt, Preston, Chapin v. L-M Mfg. Co., 262 F.2d 343 (3d Cir. 1959)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
January 9, 1959
Docket
No. 12712
Judges
Biggs, Hastie, McLaughlin, Per Curiam
Citations
262 F.2d 343

Opinion — Per Curiam

PER CURIAM.

Jurisdiction in the instant case is based on diversity and the law of Pennsylvania governs. The decision below turned on the issue as to whether the defendant-appellant, L-M Manufacturing Co., Inc., a corporation engaged in the manufacture of chain saws, tractors and other small powered equipment, by its conduct waived an unperformed provision of a contract made by it with the plaintiff-appellee, Arndt, Preston, Chap-in, Lamb & Keen, an advertising agency. Under the provisions of the contract referred to the plaintiff-appellee agreed to submit cost estimates to cover jobs specified in the nine counts of the complaint. The court below found for the plaintiff-appellee on eight of the nine counts of the complaint and assessed the fair and reasonable value of the work performed by the plaintiff-appellee for the defendant-appellant in the amounts appearing in the judgment.

The record is a highly detailed one. The basic facts relating to the conduct of the defendant-appellant, deemed to constitute waiver of the requirement of cost estimates, were weighed carefully by the court below and we cannot say that its findings of fact were clearly erroneous in any substantial particular. The ultimate finding of waiver by the court below was in accord with the law of Pennsylvania.

The counterclaim and recoupment asserted by the defendant-appellant were unsupported by any adequate proof of damages and were not pressed before this court.

The judgment will be affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1977: 11980: 119772026peak 1977 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Trustees of First Presbyterian Church v. Oliver-Tyrone Corp.375 A.2d 193 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1977)
  2. Atalanta Corp. v. Ohio Valley Provision Co.414 A.2d 123 (Pa. 1980)

Most recent

  1. Atalanta Corp. v. Ohio Valley Provision Co.414 A.2d 123 (Pa. 1980)
  2. Trustees of First Presbyterian Church v. Oliver-Tyrone Corp.375 A.2d 193 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1977)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list