Case ID: ohio-law-abs_1/html/0598-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

No. 626
    ELIAS & LOWENSTEIN CO. v. COMMON SENSE NOVELTY CO.
    Ohio Appeals, First District, Hamilton County
    No. 2131.
    Decided May 14, 1923
    Tl'js opinion lias nut been published except in Abstract.
    CONTRACTS — Effect of contract on alleged sale by sample.
    Attorneys — E. L. Fianlcenstein, for Lowenstein Co.; Dorger & Dorger, for Novelty Co.
   PER CURIAM.

Epitomized Opinion

Novelty Co. sued Elias & Lowenstein Co. to’recover on a contract lor 2500 signs delivered to Elias & Lowensteui oo. The latter admitted the contract but contened it was a saie by sample, the product furnished \,as not aecoiumg m sample, and there was a brcacn or warranty under DC. 8396. The jury retuinea a \eruiCt tor 81135 and the court, rendered juugment thereon, ru anirmlng the judgment the i-ourt or Appea.s held:

1. This was not a sa.e by sample; it was a sale on a contract.

2. Where a person sells an amide knowing the purpose foi vhicn u to uc ua-u, un-re is an implen warranty that the article is reasonably fit lor that purpoáe. Tne couit’s charge that the goods must be in accordance with the terms of the contract and reasonable lit lor the purpose for which they were to be used, was not erroneous.