Klein Struct. Steel Co. v. John J. Pool Co.

WILLIAMS, J. The Klein Structural Steel Co. sold to the John J. Pool Co. certain finishing and ornamental iron to be used in the construction of a certain school. The Pool Co-, brought an action in the Huron Common Pleas against the Steel Co., the second cause of action in the petition claiming damages for the sale of metal door frames which were claimed to be defective in that they were warped, too wide and some too narrow. The jury returned a verdict in favor of $5,053.86 upon which amount judgment was entered. The second cause of action which is considered here is one for damages under 8449 (1) (b) GC. for breach of an implied warranty that the goods should correspond with the description. The Court of Appeals held: 1. The provisions of 8449 include both general and special damages and general damages woul dbe measured by “the difference between the value of the goods at the time of delivery to the buyer and the value they would have if they answered to the warranty.” Special damages would include such other and further loss directly and naturally resulting in the ordinary course of events from the breach. 2. Since the Pool Co. did not plead special damages, the evidence as to special damages was not admissible over the objection of the Steel Co. 3. However, notwithstanding that such objection was made and exception taken, the court permitted evidence tending to show that doors of special sizes were purchased elstwhere by the Pool Co', at a cost of $2937.64 over and above the doors of standard size, if they had been according to description would have cost. 4. Evidence was also admitted as to the cost of labor performed by the Pool Co. to straighten the door frames. 5. As special damages were not plead, the court was bound to confine the evidence introduced relating to the measure of damages to the value of the goods at the time of delivery to the buyer and the value they would have had, if they answered to the warranty. 6. The excess cost of doors to fit frames, not according to specifications as to width could not be an element of general damages; and the buyer had no right to make the frames correspond to specifications and then recover the expense of so doing from the seller except to the extent that the seller and buyer had made a valid and binding agreement that such expense should be paid by the seller. 7.The court erred in refusing to give the Steel Co.’s request to charge that the jury was to disregard all evidence as to payments by the Pool Co. to the United Metal Products Co., since/ the presentation of this request raised the same question as to the excess cost of special sizes of doors. Judgment reversed and cause remanded. (Gulbert & Richards, JJ., concur.)