Case ID: super-ct-ri_1/html/0047-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "BARROWS, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

B. P. Ducas Company vs. Charles Atteridge et al
    Law No. 39464
    February 12, 1918
    For plaintiff: Green, Hinckley & Allen.
    For defendants: Gardner, Pirce & Thomley and Gfeenough, Easton & Cross.
   BARROWS, J.

Heard on jury trial Waived.

The testimony consisted of correspondence supplemented by oral evidence. The declaration seeks to recover loss of profits for an alleged breach of a contract made in New York. The measure of damages, is not disputed. It is set forth in Rhode Island General Laws, Chap. 265, Section 1, Sub-section 4, which is the same language used in the New York Sale of Goods Act.

The defence is,

First: That there was no material breach of the contract;

Second: That if any breach occurred, plaintiff waived it;

Third: That plaintiff failed to give notice of an election to rescind the contract; and

Fourth: That by cashing a certain check of the defendants, plaintiff accepted defendants proposed modification of the contract and that the contract as so modified has not been broken.

(Discussion)

Decision for plaintiff for $11,790.37.