Braden v. Mitchell

California Court of Appeal Aug 31, 1922 No. Civ. No. 3826.Published

Before: Conrey

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a contract for the sale of a specific lot of salvaged goods, where quantities are estimated, does not constitute a warranty of quantity, and the vendor is not liable for deficiencies if the entire lot was delivered.

Issues

Whether the trial court erred in admitting extraneous evidence to interpret a written contract that was clear and certain in its terms.
Whether the description of property in the contract constituted a warranty of quantity or merely an estimate of a specific lot.

Disposition. reversed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“We find in the contract nothing that justified a resort to extraneous evidence for the purpose of interpreting the terms of the writing.”

“We are of the opinion that the sale was of a specific lot of salvaged goods, of which the probable amount was only estimated.”

“the naming of the quantity is not regarded as in the nature of a warranty, but only as an estimate of the probable amount”

CONREY, P. J.

Action to recover damages for failure of the defendant to deliver a part of certain personal property alleged to have been included in an agreement of sale. The plaintiff recovered judgment and the defendant appeals therefrom.

The court found that the defendant agreed to sell and deliver to the plaintiff, and the plaintiff agreed to purchase from the defendant, “a certain salvage stock consisting of the following approximate articles, to wit”: the same being certain stated quantities of glass jars and other articles.

The court found that the defendant refused and failed to deliver to plaintiff certain items contained in that list. Appellant contends that these findings are not sustained by the evidence.

The contract was in writing. It described the property sold as follows: “a certain salvage stock from Willets

[30]

& Green. The approximate amounts of said goods are as follows”; stating the quantities of the various articles. Overruling objections of the plaintiff, the court permitted the defendant to introduce testimony, and correspondence of the parties, for the purpose of establishing the actual intention of the parties, and then decided on the evidence that the facts were as above quoted from the findings. This evidence was immaterial to the issues presented if the contract was clear and certain in its terms. We find in the contract nothing that justified a resort to extraneous evidence for the purpose of interpreting the terms of the writing. On the written contract the question to be determined is whether or not the description of the property sold was such that the quantity was warranted. We are of the opinion that the sale was of a specific lot of salvaged goods, of which the probable amount was only estimated. Therefore, since the good faith of the vendor is not questioned, and since the entire “certain salvage stock” was delivered, the plaintiff cannot recover damages for any deficiency in quantity of the items indicated in the contract. The rule which should be applied here is stated in

Brawley

United States,

Braden v. Mitchell

AI Brief

CONREY, P. J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief