{
  "id": 3018361,
  "name": "Enrico Formella, trading as E. Formella & Company, Appellee, v. Durand & Kasper Company, Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "Formella v. Durand & Kasper Co.",
  "decision_date": "1918-06-14",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 23,575",
  "first_page": "414",
  "last_page": "415",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "211 Ill. App. 414"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 190,
    "char_count": 2330,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.56,
    "sha256": "0fad8a7c2510b5622b3e90689f731da37ded01d0745511e83f740b570bedb7d6",
    "simhash": "1:4576c19d38195f5d",
    "word_count": 379
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:44:38.810297+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Enrico Formella, trading as E. Formella & Company, Appellee, v. Durand & Kasper Company, Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Presiding Justice Barnes\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\n*See Illinois Notes Digest, Vole. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Presiding Justice Barnes"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Frederick J. Kasper, for appellant.",
      "De Stefano & Mirabella, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Enrico Formella, trading as E. Formella & Company, Appellee, v. Durand & Kasper Company, Appellant.\nGen. No. 23,575.\n(Not to be reported in full.)\nAppeal from the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Rufus F. Robinson, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1917.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed June 14, 1918.\nRehearing denied June 24, 1918.\nStatement of the Case.\nAction by Enrico Formella, trading as E. Formella & Company, plaintiff, against Durand & Kasper Company, a corporation, defendant, to recover damages for defendant\u2019s breach of contract. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals.\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Sales, \u00a7 1* \u2014 when evidence is sufficient to meet requirements of contract. In an action by the vendee to recover damages for the vendor\u2019s failure to deliver goods called for by a written contract, evidence -of tender of the purchase price by plaintiff on demanding delivery held sufficient to meet the requirements of the contract, there being evidence of a readiness, willingness and ability on the part of the plaintiff to take 'the goods, as required by Uniform Sales Act, sec. 42 [Callaghan\u2019s 1916 St. Supp. 10021(45)].\n2. Sales, \u00a7 166* \u2014 when practical construction given contract as not requiring cash on delivery. Vendor of goods held to have given a practical construction to thp contract as not requiring cash on delivery by extending a limited credit on deliveries made as it had done in previous dealings with the vendee.\n3. Sales, \u00a7 163* \u2014 delivery and payment as concurrent conditions. Even though a contract for the sale of goods provided for cash on delivery, delivery and payment were concurrent conditions, and the purchaser was not required to pay unless the seller was ready and willing to deliver, under Uniform Sales Act, sec. 42 [Callaghan\u2019s 1916 St. Supp. If 10021(45)].\n4. Contbacts, \u00a7 53* \u2014 what is equivalent to formal execution. Even though one of the parties to a contract did not sign it, but such party held a copy of the contract and acted upon it, such action was equivalent to a formal execution.\nFrederick J. Kasper, for appellant.\nDe Stefano & Mirabella, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0414-01",
  "first_page_order": 468,
  "last_page_order": 469
}
