Rainbow Petroleum Co. v. Union Drilling & Petroleum Co.

California Court of Appeal Jun 29, 1931 No. Docket No. 6815.Published

Before: Craig

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that there is no implied warranty in the rental of second-hand equipment where the hirer has inspected the property and the bailor made no representations as to quality. Consequently, the hirer is liable for the agreed rental and the value of unreturned property regardless of alleged defects.

Issues

Whether an implied warranty exists in the rental of second-hand oil-well pipe where the hirer inspected the goods.
Whether the hirer is liable for the value of pipe lost during use despite claims of defects in the equipment.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“it was held that there is no implied warranty on the sale of second-hand machinery; that the buyer having purchased after an examination of the property will, in the absence of any representations by the seller, be held to have purchased entirely upon his own judgment.”

“We find no reversible error in the particulars asserted by appellant.”

CRAIG, J.

In an action upon a contract in writing for the rental of personal property consisting of oil-well drill . pipe, judgment was awarded the plaintiff, from which the defendant appealed.

It is admitted that the plaintiff and respondent rented and delivered to the appellant certain piping for drilling purposes, that the same was so used, and that with

[276]

slight exceptions it was returned to the lessor. By the terms of a written contract between the parties it was agreed that appellant should pay a per

diem

rental for use of the pipe, and that it would compensate respondent for any portions not returned. Upon the institution of this action for agreed rental and the value of missing pipe the defendant for the first time complained of defects alleged to have interfered with the success of its project and to have caused the loss of a portion of the pipe. Such defense was founded upon an asserted implied warranty by the bailor. It affirmatively appeared that in drawing the pipe from great depth it parted, leaving the lost section in the ground. It was second-hand pipe, which had theretofore been used in various wells, of which the hirer was informed. A representative of the latter called at respondent’s premises to inspect the pipe, and according to the testimony was advised that little was known as to its condition except as to the use to which it had been devoted, and that “if they wanted to rent it, it was up to them”; that he should “take whatever pipe he wanted out of the pile”. Said representative, the superintendent of appellant’s drilling operations, testified: “I inspected it as carefully as I could; I threaded it, some places where it wasn’t taking, and the collars were pretty thin, still weakened.”

The respondent was not the manufacturer, and made no representations as to quality equal to samples exhibited. A mere contract of sale does not imply a warranty. (Civ. Code, secs. 1764, 1766.) We think the instant case is controlled by those principles applied and supported by a wide range of authorities to the sale of an automobile in

Lamb

Rainbow Petroleum Co. v. Union Drilling & Petroleum Co.

AI Brief

CRAIG, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief