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
1,376 charsby Fischer, showing all these costs for the period June to September, inclusive, and his estimates of the normal and excess costs, from which he deducted the amount defendant received from its insurance company. However, he did not show costs for this period in any other years as a basis for this computation. Moreover, he did not allow for a reasonable time for plaintiff to repair the warehouse, which it appears was five or six weeks, and which would cut down the period for which plaintiff could be held responsible. (Cleaning up after the casualty also interrupted defendant’s business for at least that length of time.) Furthermore, no facts, figures nor data were shown as a basis for estimating excess moving cost and we are not able to determine what proportion of the entire moving cost was included. Likewise, some of the labor cost was for salvaging goods in the damaged warehouse and it does not appear that this is separated in defendant’s computation of labor costs. Our conclusion is that defendant does have evidence to show reduced profits for which the jury could find plaintiff liable but that its evidence was too indefinite to support the verdict rendered. We have discretion to remand for a new trial where it appears that a party has rights growing out of the transaction involved and, under the circumstances of this case, we believe we should do so.