Yaffe v. American Fixture, Inc., 345 S.W.2d 195 (1961)
- Citation
- Yaffe v. American Fixture, Inc., 345 S.W.2d 195 (1961)
- Parent Document
- Yaffe v. American Fixture, Inc., 345 S.W.2d 195 (1961)
- Jurisdiction
- Missouri (state)
- Effective Date
- 1961-04-10
Other Sections in This Document (22)
- Yaffe v. American Fixture, Inc., 345 S.W.2d 195 (1961)
- Yaffe v. American Fixture, Inc., 345 S.W.2d 195 (1961)
- Yaffe v. American Fixture, Inc., 345 S.W.2d 195 (1961)
- Yaffe v. American Fixture, Inc., 345 S.W.2d 195 (1961)
- Yaffe v. American Fixture, Inc., 345 S.W.2d 195 (1961)
- Yaffe v. American Fixture, Inc., 345 S.W.2d 195 (1961)
- Yaffe v. American Fixture, Inc., 345 S.W.2d 195 (1961)
- Yaffe v. American Fixture, Inc., 345 S.W.2d 195 (1961)
- Yaffe v. American Fixture, Inc., 345 S.W.2d 195 (1961)
- Yaffe v. American Fixture, Inc., 345 S.W.2d 195 (1961)
- Yaffe v. American Fixture, Inc., 345 S.W.2d 195 (1961)
- Yaffe v. American Fixture, Inc., 345 S.W.2d 195 (1961)
- Yaffe v. American Fixture, Inc., 345 S.W.2d 195 (1961)
- Yaffe v. American Fixture, Inc., 345 S.W.2d 195 (1961)
- Yaffe v. American Fixture, Inc., 345 S.W.2d 195 (1961)
- Yaffe v. American Fixture, Inc., 345 S.W.2d 195 (1961)
- Yaffe v. American Fixture, Inc., 345 S.W.2d 195 (1961)
- Yaffe v. American Fixture, Inc., 345 S.W.2d 195 (1961)
- Yaffe v. American Fixture, Inc., 345 S.W.2d 195 (1961)
- Yaffe v. American Fixture, Inc., 345 S.W.2d 195 (1961)
- Yaffe v. American Fixture, Inc., 345 S.W.2d 195 (1961)
- Yaffe v. American Fixture, Inc., 345 S.W.2d 195 (1961)
Full Text
1,092 charsHowever, this does not mean, as plaintiff contends, that there must be an outright reversal of defendant’s judgment on its counterclaim. Defendant did have evidence that 1957 profits were reduced by added labor costs caused by failure of plaintiff to make prompt repairs as required by the lease. It was shown that lack of warehouse space required manufactured goods to be kept in defendant’s manufacturing plant, filling its aisles, interfering with its manufacturing work, impairing the efficiency of its operations and lowering its production. This condition added to its labor costs by requiring moving of merchandise by workers to get to their machines, limiting the number of items that could be produced from each machine operation, by preventing free flow of materials, and by causing inefficient handling for shipping. It also added to cost of materials used by making it necessary to buy smaller quantities at a time. Defendant also claimed excess moving costs because of these conditions and the situation at the warehouse. Defendant did have computations, made from its books *201