8 sources. The general undertaking of the warrantor is, therefore, that he will answer for the quality of the goods after they have become the property of the buyer by his acceptance." Implied warranty survives acceptance. The terms of the contract which before acceptance were conditions precedent, giving a right of rejection, after acceptance become warranties and protect the buyer against loss in not obtaining the quality he bargained for, 10 11 This protection may avail against consequences of patent defects as well as against the existence of latent defects; but the buyer may waive the protection of an implied warranty and whether or not he does so is a question of fact for the jury.12 This view is said to be supported by the weight of authority." 316, 5 L. R. A. 702; Pierson v. Crooks, 115 N. Y. 539; Fairbank Canning Co. v. Metzger, 118 N. Y. 260; Zabriskie v. Central Vt. Ry. Co., 131 N. Y. 72; Cox v. Long, 69 N. C. 7; Lewis v. Rountree, 78 N. C. 323; Dayton v. Hooglung, 39 Ohio St. 671; Lenz v. Blake, 44 Ore. 569; Holloway v. Jacoby, 120 Pa. St. 583; Best v. Flint, 58 Vt. 543; 2 Mechem on Sales, § 1395. The right to rescind a contract of sale never operates to annul a warranty of the thing sold, unless there is a provision that the rescission is the only remedy for the purchaser. The right to rescind a contract of sale in case of fraud always exists, and yet there may have been a warranty of the thing sold. The two remedies can co-exist and the purchaser has his option between them." Shupe v. Collender, 56 Conn. 489, Brackett, 119 Ga. 489; Seaboard Lum. Co. v. Cornelia Planing Mill Co., 132 Ga. 370; Underwood v. Wolf, 131 Ill. 425; Graff v. Osborne, 56 Kan. 162; Morse v. Moore, 83 Me. 473, 13 L. R. A. 224; Eastern Ry. Co. v. Benedict, 81 Mass. (15 Gray) 289; Lewis v. Rountree, 78 N. C. 323; Morse v. Union Stock Yards, 21 Ore. 289, 14 L. R. A. 157; Holloway v. Jacoby, 120 Pa. St. 573. 11. 2 Mechem on Sales, § 1393. The vendee is entitled to damages for latent defects discoverable only upon "working up "the goods. Gautier v. Douglass Mfg. Co., 13 Hun (N. Y.), 514; Jones v. Bloomgarden, 143 Mich. 326. 12. English v. Spokane Com. Co., 48 Fed. 196; Polhemus v. Heiman, 45 Cal. 573; Hege v. Newsome, 96 Ind. 426; Morse v. Moore, 83 Me. 473; Gould v. Stein, 149 Mass. 570; Parks v. Morris, etc., Tool Co., 54 N. Y. 586; Fairbank Can. Co. v. Metzger, 118 N. Y. 260; Zabriskie v. Cent. Ry. Co., 131 N. Y. 72; Eppens, Smith & Weiman Co. v. Littlejohn, 164 N. Y. 187; Gen. Elec. Co. v. Nat. Contracting Co., 178 N. Y. 369; Lewis v. Rountree, 78 N. C. 323; Northwestern Cordage Co. v. Rice, 5 N. D. 432; Dayton v. Hooglung, 39 Ohio St. 671; Holloway v. Jacoby, 120 Pa. St. 583; Best v. Flint, 58 Vt. 543; Tacoma Coal Co. v. Bradley, 2 Wash. 600. 13. 2 Mechem on Sales, § 1393. Contra. Some courts hold, however, that it is not only the buyer's right, but his duty to determine before acceptance whether the goods tendered fulfill the terms of the contract, so far as inspection can disclose and that an acceptance is a conclusive acknowledgement that they do so far as visible defects are concerned and the conditional terms do not take on the character of warranties after acceptance; but as to defects which ordinary skill did not disclose upon examination, the warranty survives.15 EXPRESS LIMITATION OF WARRANTIES.-The parties may expressly agree that acceptance of the goods, after stipulated examination and tests, shall be a conclusive acknowledgment of full performance by the seller of every term of the contract.16 In such cases, retention of the goods without giving the stipulated notice of defects or objections, is conclusive evidence of full performance,1 unless waived by the seller.18 17 ACCEPTANCE OF PART.-Entire Contracts."—The buyer is not 14. Underwood v. Wolf, 131 Ill. 425; Watkins v. Paine, 57 Ga. 50; O'Bannon v. Relf, 37 Ky. (7 Dana) 320; Kerr v. Smith, 44 Ky. (5 B. Mon.) 552; Jones v. McEwan, 91 Ky. 373, 12 L. R. A. 399; Talbot Pav. Co. v. Gorman, 103 Mich. 403; Williams v. Robb, 104 Mich. 242; Haase v. Nonnemacher, 21 Minn. 486; Maxwell v. Lee, 34 Minn. 511; Thompson v. Libby, 35 Minn. 443; Lee v. Bangs, 43 Minn. 23; Rosenfield v. Swenson, 45 Minn. 190; Reed v. Randall, 29 N. Y. 358; Day v. Poole, 52 N. Y. 416; Gaylord Mfg. Co. v. Allen, 53 N. Y. 515; Briggs v. Hilton, 99 N. Y. 517; Norton v. Dreyfus, 106 N. Y. 90; Coplay Iron Co. v. Pope, 108 N. Y. 232; Brown v. Foster, 108 N. Y. 387; Studer v. Bleistein, 115 N. Y. 316, 5 L. R. A. 704; Pierson v. Crooks, 115 N. Y. 539; Fairbank Can. Co. v. Metzger, 118 N. Y. 260; Barton v. Kane 17 Wis. 37; Gill v. Benjamin, 64 Wis. 362; McClure v. Jefferson, 85 Wis. 208; Parker v. Palmer, 4 B. & Ald. 387; Chapman v. Morton, 11 M. & W. 534. No damages can be recovered for a visible or ascertainable defect, after an unqualified acceptance upon exam ination, of goods manufactured under an executory contract. Smith v. Servis, 11 N. Y. Supp. 301. 15. Barnard v. Kellogg, 77 U. S. (10 Wall.) 383; Atkins v. Cobb, 56 Ga. 86; Miller v. Moore, 83 Ga. 684, 6 L. R. A. 374; Meickley v. Parsons, 66 Iowa, 63; Hight v. Bacon, 126 Mass. 10; Gould v. Stein, 149 Mass. 570, 5 L. R. A. 213; Jones v. George, 61 Tex. 345. If the vendee discovers a latent defect after acceptance of the goods, he must rescind the sale and return or offer to return the goods. Lawton ▼. Keil, 61 Barb. (N. Y.) 558; Keeler v. Vandervere, 5 Lans. (N. Y.) 313; Shaw v. Lighthouse, 7 N. Y. Supp. 271. 16. 2 Mechem on Sales, § 1396. 17. Beasley v. Huyett, etc., Mfg. Co., 92 Ga. 273; Aultman v. Thierer, 34 Iowa, 272; Bomberger v. Griener, 18 Iowa, 477; Osborne v. Baker, 103 Mich. 247; Minn. Thresher Co. v. Lincoln, 4 N. D. 410; Kingman v. Watson, 97 Wis. 596. 18. 2 Mechem on Sales, § 1385. 19. For what constitutes an entire contract, see Norris v. Harris, 15 Cal. 226; Clark v. Baker, 46 Mass. obliged, nor has he the right to accept part only of the goods sold under an entire contract. He must accept or reject the whole.20 If he rejects, he must place the seller in statu quo. 21 Neither is the buyer bound to accept a tender of more than the quantity ordered, or to separate the correct quantity from a larger Acceptance of one instalment of a continuing contract does not prevent the rejection of another not in conformity to the terms of a contract;23 and non-conformity of one instalment does not justify rejection of a later instalment which does conform to the terms of the contract.24 If he accepts and keeps a part with the seller's consent, he must pay for it although the seller does not deliver the residue, but may recoup damages for the seller's default.25 The parties may agree that the contract may be severed.26 SEVERABLE CONTRACT.2-In severable contracts, the buyer may accept or reject the several lots according as they do or do not conform to the contract;28 but even wrongful refusal of the buyer to accept one lot does not release the seller from his obligation to tender the residue in accordance with the terms of the contract.29 FRAUD.-Acceptance procured by the seller's fraud,30 or promise (5 Met.) 452; Morse v. Brackett, 98 Mass. 205; Mansfield v. Trigg, 113 Mass. 350. 20. Bryant v. Thesing, 46 Neb. 244; Bruce v. Pearson, 3 Johns. (N. Y.) 534; Kein v. Tupper, 52 N. Y. 550, 553; 2 Mechem on Sales, § 1398. 21. Mansfield v. Trigg, 113 Mass. 350; Pierson v. Crooks, 115 N. Y. 539. 22. Stevenson v. Burgin, 49 Pa. St. 36; Brownfield v. Johnson, 128 Pa. St. 254, 268, 6 L. R. A. 48; Perry v. Mt. Hope Iron Co., 16 R. I. 318, 15 R. I. 380. See sec. 44. 23. Hubbard v. George, 49 Ill. 275; Cahen v. Platt, 69 N. Y. 348; Russell & Co. v. Lilienthal, 36 Ore. 105. 24. Guernsey v. West Coast Lumber Co., 87 Cal. 249; Cahen v. Platt, 69 N. Y. 348. 25. Guernsey v. West Coast Lumber Co., 87 Cal. 249; Reed v. Randall, 29 N. Y. 358; McCormick v. Sarson, 45 N. Y. 265; Gaylord Mfg. Co. v. Allen, 53 N. Y. 515; Avery v. Willson, 81 N. Y. 341; Nightingale v. Eiseman, 121 N. Y. 288. See sec. 45. 26. Mansfield v. Trigg, 113 Mass. 350; Russell & Co. v. Lilienthal, 36 Ore. 105. 27. "Divisible contract to sell or sale' means a contract to sell or sale in which, by its terms, the price for a portion or portions of the goods less than the whole is fixed or ascertainable by computation." Sec. 76. 28. Potsdamer v. Kruse, 57 Minn. 193; Holmes v. Gregg, 66 N. H. 621; Pierson v. Crooks, 115 N. Y. 539. 29. Herzog v. Purdy, 119 Cal. 99; Young, etc., Mfg. Co. v. Wakefield, 121 Mass. 91; Morgan v. McKee, 77 Pa. St. 228. 30. Dutchess Co. v. Harding, 49 N. Y. 321; Shipway V. Broadwood (1899), 1 Q. B. 369. to remedy the defect,31 or the buyer's mistake,32 is not conclusive against the buyer.33 35 REMEDIES. An action for damages or recoupment of the price for breach of warranty is always maintainable.34 The Act allows a rescission also for the same cause, except where the buyer knew of the defect at the time of acceptance.36 In many States this was not allowed at common law in the absence of fraud or special contract.37 NOTICE. The provisions that the buyer must give the seller reasonable notice of defects, if he intends to claim damages or rebate from the price is an equitable one, and has the sanction of the authorities, 38 but the seller may waive notice.39 Written notice may be waived and oral notice will suffice.40 Section 50. Buyer Is Not Bound to Return Goods Wrongly Delivered. Unless otherwise agreed, where goods are delivered to the buyer and he refuses to accept them, having the right so to do, he is not bound to return them to the seller, but it is sufficient if he notifies the seller that he refuses to accept them. The parties may expressly agree that the buyer shall return the goods if he shall reject them. Unless otherwise agreed, the buyer is not bound to return the goods, but performs his whole duty by giving the seller notice of his rejection. The seller may expressly 31. Osborne v. Carpenter, 37 Minn. 331; Fitzpatrick v. Osborne Co., 50 Minn. 261. 32. 1 Mechem on Sales, § 265. 33. 2 Mechem on Sales, § 1397. 34. See sec. 69. Hall, etc., Co. v. Crook, 87 Miss. 445. 35. See sec. 69. 36. See sec. 12. 37. See notes to sec. 69. The common law of Connecticut did not allow a rescission for breach of warranties. 38. Aultman-Taylor Mach. Co. v. Ridenour, 96 Iowa, 638; Furneaux v. Esterley, 36 Kan. 539; Champion Mach. Co. v. Mann, 42 Kan. 372; Nichols v. Knowles, 31 Minn. 489; Fahey v. Esterley Mach. Co., 3 N. D. 220. See sec. 69. 2 39. Wartman v. Breed, 117 Mass. 18; Suit v. Bonnell, 33 Wis. 180. See sec. 48. 40. Davis v. Robinson, 67 Iowa, 355; Davis Sons v. Butrick, 68 Iowa, 94; Mass. Loan & Trust Co. v. Welch, 47 Minn. 183; Sandwich Mfg. Co. v. Feary, 40 Neb. 226; Minn. Thresher Mfg. Co. v. Hanson, 3 N. D. 81; Kingman v. Watson, 97 Wis. 596. 1. 2 Mechem on Sales, § 1402. Whether there is such an agreement is a question of fact for the jury. Smalley v. Hendrickson, 29 N. J. L. 371. 2. Gray v. Consolidated Ice Mach. Co., 103 Ga. 115; Doane v. Dunham, 65 Ill. 512; Dwiggins v. Clark, 94 Ind. 49, 53; Smith v. Borden, 160 Ind. 223; Hunt v. Wyman, 100 Mass. waive such notice. If the seller refuses to take the goods back, he is liable for the reasonable charge for the care and custody of them.* 198; Mansfield v. Trigg, 113 Mass. 350; McCormick Harv. Co. v. Cochran, 64 Mich. 636; Perkins Mill Co. v. Kelly, 141 Mich. 459; Jones v. Bloomgarden, 143 Mich. 326; McCormick Harv. Co. v. Chesrown, 33 Minn. 32; Mo. Smoke Preventer Co. v. St. Louis, 205 Mo. 220; Starr v. Torrey, 22 N. J. L. 190; Smalley v. Hendrickson, 29 N. J. L. 371; Reed v. Randall, 29 N. Y. 358; Dustan v. McAndrew, 44 N. Y. 72, 73; Cahen v. Platt, 69 N. Y. 348; Smith v. Petee, 70 N. Y. 13; Porter v. Wormser, 94 N. Y. 431, 442; Coplay Iron Co. v. Pope, 108 N. Y. 232; Woodruff v. Peterson, 51 Barb. 252; Weaver V. Wisner, 51 Barb. 638; Leavenworth v. Packer, 52 Barb. (N. Y.) 132; Delafield v. De Grauw, 3 Keyes (N. Y.), 467; Neaffie v. Hart, 4 Lans. (N. Y.) 4; Heydecker v. Lombard, 7 Daly (N. Y.), 19; Rheinstrom v. Steiner, 69 Ohio St. 452; Bascom v. Danville Stove Co., 182 Pa. St. 427; Gibson v. Vail, 53 Vt. 476; Exhaust Vent. Co. v. Chic., etc., Ry. Co., 6 Wis. 454; Lucy v. Mouflet, 5 H. & N. 229; Grimoldby v. Wells, L. R. 10 C. P. 391; Heilbutt v. Hickson, L. R. 7 C. P. 438, 456. No particular form of notice is essential. Any unequivocal act showing rejection is sufficient. Grimoldby v. Wells, L. R. 10 C. P. 391, 395. The notice need not point out the defects. American White Bronze Co. v. Gillette, 88 Mich. 231. The buyer need not return the goods. It is sufficient if he gives notice to the seller that he rejects and that they remain at the seller's risk. Benjamin on Sales, § 894; Grimoldby v. Wells, L. R. 10 C. P. 391. Where the buyer notifies the seller of rescission because the goods are not the kind ordered, and offers to return them, the buyer may dispose of them at the best obtainable prices, and defend in an action for the price on the ground of non-compliance. Jones v. Bloomgarden, 143 Mich. 326. "Disaffirmance after receiving the goods involves the duty either to return them to, or hold them subject to the seller's order. The law of sales recognizes no such self-executing kind of attachment as holding in damages." Dougherty, etc., Co. v. Implement Co., 75 Kan. 450, 451. Citing Shear Co. v. Thompson, 72 Kan. 432. If the buyer keeps them for the purpose of obtaining general damages occasioned by delay, he is liable for the price. Dougherty, etc., Co. v. Implement Co., 75 Kan. 450, 451. 3. Wartman v. Breed, 117 Mass. 18. "Usually when a contract of sale contains no stipulations to the contrary, if the vendee has the right to rescind, and the property has been delivered to him, he must return, or offer to return it, or give notice of rescission. But the vendor may relieve the vendee of the performance of these acts, and take on himself the burthen of inquiry as to whether the vendee rescinds or not." Smalley v. Hendrickson, 29 N. J. L. 371, 373. When written notice is required by contract, the seller may waive that form, when oral notice is sufficient. Davis v. Butrick, 68 Iowa, 94; Kingman v. Watson, 97 Wis. 596. An agent with general authority to sell has authority to waive notice of rejection (Pitsinowski v. Beardsley, 37 Ia. 9; Words v. Robertson, 75 Ia. 505; Osborne v. Baker, 103 Mich. 247), unless expressly provided otherwise. Furneaux v. Esterly, 36 Kan. 539; Michaels v. Knowles, 31 Minn. 489; Fahey v. Esterly Machine Co., 3 N. D. 220. 4. Caswell V. Coare (1809), 1 Taunt. 566; Chesterman v. Lamb (1834), 2 A. & E. 129. |