Frederick Sage & Co. v. Alexander & Oviatt Corp.

HAHN, J., pro tem. Appeal by plaintiff from a judgment entered upon the findings and award of two of three members of a board of arbitration, the arbitration being agreed to by stipulation of the parties and carried out under the provisions of the Civil Code.

Appellant’s contention is that the evidence does not support the award of the arbitrators, in this:

1st. The evidence is insufficient to sustain the findings that the defects which developed in the fixtures were due to poor -workmanship or inferior materials.

2d. That plaintiff neither warranted the fixtures nor was there any implied warranty that the fixtures would serve any particular purpose of the buyer.

In August, 1927, plaintiff and defendant entered into a contract in Paris, France, whereby plaintiff agreed to manufacture and deliver to defendant at Paris certain store fronts, ceilings and store fixtures, which were to be installed by defendant in its new store then being constructed in Los Angeles. Mr. Alexander, president of defendant corporation, was then in Paris, where, under the guidance of [478]representatives of plaintiff he was shown store fronts and fixtures manufactured by the latter. Desiring to have in his new store fixtures similar to those shown him in Paris, plaintiff’s representatives were commissioned to make the necessary drawings and specifications for the equipment. By the terms of the contract defendant was to pay $106,920 in twenty-four monthly installments.

When the fixtures were received in Los Angeles and installed, no defects of any kind appeared either in the material or workmanship. Defendant for nine months after the installation made the monthly payments provided by the contract.

However, early in 1929 the veneer on some of the cases began to check, blister and crack. In some instances it came loose from the cores. Doors and drawers'became warped so as to make it difficult and in some cases impossible to close them. Mouldings and other decorative parts of the fixtures became loose and large cracks developed at the joints of the mouldings. In February, 1929, defendant wrote plaintiff advising it of these defects which had developed, and stated that no further payments would be made under the contract until the defects in question had been repaired.

After attempts to adjust matters had failed, plaintiff filed suit to collect the balance unpaid on the contract. Defendant thereupon moved for an order of court requiring plaintiff to submit the disputed matters to arbitration as provided in the contract.