Case ID: la-ann_48/html/0773-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Miller, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

No. 12,036.
    The National Water Purifying Company vs. The New Orleans Waterworks Company.
    1. The ease presents a question as to the performance o£ a contract.
    2. The articles of the Code that give to the buyer the right to claim a reduction of the price when the thing sold, though not of the character required by the contract, is susceptible of use.'cau not be extended so as to compel the party who has contracted for a filtering plant of fixed capacity as to quality, quantity and in other respects, to pay some part of the price for a plant not capable of accomplishing the purposes specified in the contract. O. C., Art. 2541, et seq-
    
    A PPEAL from the Oivil District Court for the Parish of Orleans, -t*- Monroe, J. '
    
    
      Denegre, Blair & Denegre, for Plaintiff, Appellant.
    
      Farrar, Jonas & Kruttschnitt, for Defendant, Appellee.
    Argued and submitted March 24, 1896.
    Opinion handed down April 20, 1896.
   The opinion of the court was delivered by

Miller, J.

This is an appeal from the judgment dissmissing . plaintiff’s demand for the amount claimed to be due under the contract to furnish a filter plant for defendant’s waterworks, and an additional pipe for the works. The defence is, substantially, that after two tests the plant, instead of demonstrating the capacity for delivering filtered water, as stipulated in the contract, proved entirely insufficient and unfit for the contract purposes. On the facts the court holds that the defendants failed to fulfil the obligations of their contract. The plaintiff asks us to apply the rule laid down in Oivil Code, Art. 2541, et seg., as to reduction of the price, on the theory of partial performance of the contract. The defendant’s engagement was to pay for a plant that would accomplish certain results and prove the capacity for the purposes thus explicitly defined. We do not perceive that there is any warrant in law to compel defendant to pay at a reduced price for a plant not that which plaintiff was to furnish and for which defendant was to pay.

Judgment affirmed.