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
1,342 charsSince this case must be retried we will rule on two of plaintiff’s remaining contentions. Plaintiff argues that his agent should have been permitted to testify that he considered defendant’s letter of July 29th claiming a month to month lease as terminating plaintiff’s obligation to commence repairs. Plaintiff argues this as the basis of an estoppel. However, it is apparent that plaintiff did not rely on any such theory; no estoppel was pleaded but instead plaintiff stated in his answer to defendant’s counterclaim that he “restored .the leased premises with all reasonable speed and promptness.” Therefore, this contention is inconsistent with plaintiff’s theory of the case. Moreover, plaintiff’s own evidence was that at all times he claimed the lease was in effect; and that, about three weeks after receiving this letter, he did-order repairs made. Furthermore, plaintiff’s own statement in his deposition (which was not denied) was that repairs were not started until he made an agreement with his insurance company and that was the only reason for the delay. In any event, the view of plaintiff’s agent about the effect of the letter was immaterial on any issues tried. The letter was in evidence and was for the jury’s consideration on the issues submitted, together with all other facts, circumstances and documents in evidence.