Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

199 Ill. App. 467

Anderson Computing Scale Co. v. Hattenbach

Appellate Court of Illinois

Decided May 12, 1916

Appellate Court of Illinois · decided 1916-05-12

<p>Abstract of the Decision.</p> <p>1. Sales, § 388*—what are remedies of purchaser for breach of warranty. Where there is a sale and delivery of personal property, with an express or an implied warranty, if the property is found to be defective, the purchaser may keep and use the property and sue for damages on a breach of warranty, or. when sued for the price, he may recoup such damages.</p> <p>2. Sales, § 389*—when purchaser may recoup damages for breach of warranty. Where there is a warranty of goods sold, without fraud, and they have been accepted and there is no stipulation in the contract that they may be returned, the vendee has no right to annul the contract, without the consent of the vendor, for a breach-of warranty, but where sued for the purchase price, may recoup damages sustained by reason of the breach of warranty.</p> <p>3. Sales, § 404*—what is measure of damages for breach of warranty. The measure of damages for breach of warranty is the difference between the value of the article as warranted, and its actual value in its alleged defective condition.</p> <p>4. Sales, § 389*—when damages for breach of warranty may not be set off in action for purchase price. In an action for the purchase price of an article, no damages for breach of warranty can be set off in the absence of evidence of the amount thereof.</p> <p>5. Corporations, § 710*—what does not constitute doing business within State by foreign corporation. Soliciting of orders in this State by an agent of a foreign corporation is not doing business by such corporation, within the meaning of the statute regulating activities of foreign corporations within the State.</p>

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently February 1932

3 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Affirmed · Decided 1916-05-12

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Mr. Justice O’Connor

¶1delivered the opinion of the court.

5. Corporations, § 710*—what does not constitute doing business within State by foreign corporation. Soliciting of orders in this State by an agent of a foreign corporation is not doing business by such corporation, within the meaning of the statute regulating activities of foreign corporations within the State.
/199/illapp/467 · .json · Public domain