I did a little searching and found this...
http://oh.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.19510223_0000008.NOH.htm/qx
Just a bit of the case file. I have highlighted (
in red) the important parts to keep it interesting.
NATKIN & CO. v. ARO EQUIP. CORP.UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO, WESTERN DIVISION
Footnotes, docket and citations numbers available with purchase.
February 23, 1951
NATKIN & CO.
v.
ARO EQUIPMENT CORP
The opinion of the court was delivered by: KLOEB
Demand for jury being withdrawn, this case was submitted to the Court on the pleadings, the pretrial agreement of counsel to confine the hearing to the question of liability, the evidence and the briefs.
Plaintiff, in its amended complaint, states that, on the 17th day of December, 1947, it entered into an agreement with the defendant,
wherein defendant agreed to buy 1,000 Aro Service Merchandisers at a price of $ 159.85 each, and plaintiff agreed to manufacturer, sell and deliver to the defendant 1,000 Aro Service Merchandisers to be purchased as set forth in the agreement; that plaintiff entered upon the performance of the contract and began the manufacture of said Merchandisers and did all things necessary and proper on its part to be done, but defendant neglected, failed and refused to comply with its agreement; that defendant wrongfully, and in violation of its contract, repudiated the same and refused to carry it out; that plaintiff, from time to time, delivered, in part performance of said contract, a total of 226 units, but defendant has wholly failed to authorize the manufacture or to give shipping instructions or to purchase the remaining 774 units; that by reason thereof plaintiff has been damaged in the sum of $ 58,732.06.
Defendant, in its answer, admits that it entered into an agreement on December 17, 1947 with plaintiff relative to the purchase of Aro Service Merchandisers, but denies that the terms of the agreement were such as are alleged by plaintiff; it admits that over a period of time it requested and plaintiff manufactured and delivered a total of 226 of the Merchandisers for which it paid plaintiff; it denies that the paper executed on December 17, 1947 was ever intended by the parties to be an agreement or a part of any agreement between them, and alleges that plaintiff never performed the terms and conditions contained in this paper writing, nor offered nor was able to perform the same. It alleges that an oral agreement was entered into whereby plaintiff should produce and deliver to defendant so many of the Merchandisers as defendant should authorize and order from time to time, and concludes with asking that the amended complaint be dismissed.
At the trial of the case plaintiff offered three witnesses, to wit, Joseph Richardson, of St. Louis, Missouri, who, on December 17, 1947, was the general manager of plaintiff's plants located at Omaha, Houston, Kansas City, Lincoln and St. Louis, the one located at the latter point being its principal plant; Samuel, J. Shure, who was the president of the plaintiff corporation. and Adolph Winde and employee of plaintiff. The testimony of Mr. Richardson is very important.
