March, 1931
153
A u t o m a t ic A ge
Hear Convention Reports
A special meeting of the association
named Ibelow was held on Tuesday, Mar. 10,
1931 at the office of David S. Bond, 1154
Wash. Street, Boston, Mass. Harry Ander
son, our rPesident gave an outline and re
port what happened at the convention in
Cleveland.
It was voted that a resolution ibe enacted
accepting the merger of the National As
sociations and that we change our name
from the Coin Machine Operators Associa
tion of New England to the Automatic
Merchandisers Association of New England.
Election of officers of our local organiza
tion then took place with the following re
sults— H. Anderson—.president; A. Chand
ler— 1st vice-president; B. Palastrant— 2nd
vice-president; J. S. Berch—secretary-treas
urer. Mr. Anderson gave a stirring ad
dress and drew a picture of what the new
organization would eventually grow into.
This meeting was attended by many new
operators. In addition to many plans it is
intended to have a prominent speaker at
every meeting.
________ — J. S. Berch, Sec.-Treas.
HAD BEEN TRIED
LauilMiihii - l ley, you suilurnmil.
wliat makes you think you’d be a good
baseball player?
Sailor—Oh, I’ve pitched and tossed
on the ocean for ten years.
Right when gas service stations are
about to open up wholesale to vending
machines, it seems that Mr. Henry Ford
doesn’t want them around his service and
sales rooms. That is the report that comes
from around Boston.
© International Arcade Museum
LEG AL TOPICS
B y JOHN FOSTER
•
A ttorn ey at Law
CHICAGO
A case decided by the Supreme Court of
Illinois involves a question of interest to
Manufacturer, and in fact to all business
men. The case is reported in 333 111. Su
preme Court Reports 78. The facts in that
case were:
A Furnace Manufacturer made a writ
ten proposition to furnish and install a
furnace for its customer. The customer
signed the written order required, and the
Manufacturer installed the furnace to
gether with all of the hot air outlets and
and cold air intakes, and gave a written
guarantee to the customer covering a period
of five years.
Aibout one month after the furnace had
been installed, the wife of the customer,
while working in the kitchen, stepped on
one of the grating that had been installed
by the Manufacurer, the grating broke
causing her fall and seriously injuring her.
Because of her serious injuries, she sued
the Manufacturer for damages, and the
Court decided that she could recover even
though she had not signed the order blank,
nor was the written guarantee addressed to
her.
In giving its decision, the Court stated,
that although the general rule is “ Where
an independent contractor is employed to
construct and install any given work, or
instrumentality and has done the same and
it has been accepted by the employer, and
the contractor discharged, he is no longer
liable to third persons for injuries received
as a result of defective construction or in
stallation” still there are several exceptions
to this rule, and one of them is “ That one
who supplies a thing for such use by others
that it is obvious that any defect will be
likely to result in injury to those so using
it is liable to any person who, using it pro
perly for the purpose for which it is sup
plied, is injured by its defective condition,”
and in view of this exception to the general
rule, the Furnace Manufacturer should be
held responsible as it could readily ibe fore
seen that a defective grating might cause
such an accident as that which happened.
http://www.arcade-museum.com/