Oshinsky v.
187
F. 120.
Facts: On a sale of goods contract,
the goods were contracted to be delivered on November 15th. They were delivered on the 16th instead. The defendant refused to accept the
goods. The plaintiff sued. The defendants claimed that they didn’t need
to accept the goods because they didn’t arrive when promised. The trial court found for the plaintiffs, arguing
that the contract was ambiguous enough to admit the possibility of a one day
late delivery.
Issue: Will the contract be
enforced against the defendants?
Rule: The purchaser only has the
duty to accept and pay for goods delivered on the day specified on the contract.
Analysis: The court interprets the
plain meaning of the contract to be that the delivery must be made on that
particular day.
Conclusion: The trial court’s verdict
is overturned.