“[I]n the case of a disputed oral contract, what was said and done by the parties as well as what was intended by what was said and done by them are questions of fact for the jury.”
How later courts described this case
- “[I]n the case of a disputed oral contract, what was said and done by the parties as well as what was intended by what was said and done by them are questions of fact for the jury.”
- “What was said and done by the parties as well as what was intended by what was said and done by them are questions of fact for the jury.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
213 Pa. Superior Ct. 87 (1968)
Solomon
v.
Luria, Appellant.
Superior Court of Pennsylvania.
Argued June 13, 1968.
September 12, 1968.
Before WRIGHT, P.J., WATKINS, MONTGOMERY, JACOBS, HOFFMAN, SPAULDING, and HANNUM, JJ.
Michael H. Egnal, with him Milton S. Lazaroff, and Egnal & Simons, for appellant.
*88 Jerome M. Dubyn, with him M. Mark Mendel, and Mendel & Dubyn, for appellee.
OPINION PER CURIAM, September 12, 1968:
The judgment of the court below is affirmed on the opinion of Honorable FRANCIS SHUNK BROWN, JR., P.J.