Rochester Machine Corp. v. Mulach Steel Corp.

Mulach (defendant) leased property from Rochester (plaintiff). Near the lease's end, Rochester sent Mulach an itemized damage list and sought repair payment. Mulach responded to each item, admitting responsibility for some damages while explaining others. Rochester introduced these responses as evidence at trial, and the jury found for Rochester. On Mulach's appeal, the Superior Court reversed, holding the admission evidence was improperly admitted because it doubled as a settlement offer. Rochester appealed to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.