Hoult v. Baldwin
Before: Belcher
Synopsis
Sale—Hanüfaotubed Abtiole—Implied Wabbanty.—Under sections 1769 and 1770 of the Civil Code, one who sells or agrees to sell an article of his own manufacture, thereby warrants it to be free from any latent-defect not disclosed to the buyer, arising from the process of manufacture, and also that neither he nor his agent in such manufacture has knowingly used improper materials therein; and one who manufactures an article under an order for a particular purpose warrants by the sale that it is reasonably fit for such purpose,
Id.—Expbess Wabbanty of Fitness—Bbeach by Seller—Rescission by Buyer.—Upon a breach by the seller of either of such implied warranties, or upon a breach by him of an express warranty that the article manufactured and sold would do good work of a particular kind, the buyer has a right to rescind the sale by returning or offering to return the article to the seller.
Id.—Guaranty—When Part of Contract.—The machine in question was manufactured and sold by the plaintiffs on the order of an agent of the defendant. At the time of the order, the plaintiffs notified the defendant that they intended to deliver the machine upon the cars, and that their responsibility, so far as the working thereof was concerned, should then cease. The defendant refused to accept it upon these terms, and demanded a guaranty that it would do good work. The plaintiffs thereupon executed and forwarded to him a written guaranty to that effect. Held,, that the guaranty was a part of the contract of sale, and supported by a-sufficient consideration.
Belcher, C. C. This is an action to recover the purchase price of a harvesting machine known as a combined header and separator.
The machine was manufactured by the plaintiffs at the city 'of Stockton, and is alleged to have been sold and delivered by them to the defendant in the month of May, 1878.
About the middle of April of that year the defendant was at Stockton, and in company with one H. C. Shaw, who resided there, went to the plaintiffs’ shops and saw some of the machines, which were in process of construction.
After leaving the shops, defendant said to Shaw: "If I write up to you to secure one of these machines, will you attend to the business for me?” and Shaw said he would.
None of the machines were then finished, or expected to be finished, for nearly a month.
The defendant then went away, and a correspondence was carried on between him and Shaw, and to some extent between him and the plaintiffs, in reference to the purchase of a machine and the terms and conditions on which one would be furnished.
On the 23d of April, Shaw left an order for one of the machines, and on the 15th .of May one was finished and placed on a car to be shipped to the defendant’s ranch in Los Angeles County.
"When the machine arrived at the railway station nearest to the ranch, it was carefully taken from the car, and the detached parts were put together. Animals were then harnessed to it, to haul it away, but before it had gone more than forty or fifty feet from the depot, upon a dry, hard, and level road, the tiller-post, by which the guiding wheel was attached to the tongue, broke, and it could be moved no further. A telegram was immediately sent to the plaintiffs, notifying them of the break, and they at once sent forward a duplicate casting to take the place of the broken one. The new casting was put in place and another effort was made to haul the machine to the ranch, but before it had gone many feet the new casting also broke.
[612]The defendant then declined to accept the machine, and offered to return it to the plaintiffs, and to pay the return freight thereon.
This was the first machine which went out from the plaintiffs' shops during that year, and very soon after it was shipped an improvement was introduced and used upon • all the other machines by which- the tiller-post was strengthened. “ It was made heavier; more metal was used in the plate or bottom part, and a stirrup or iron strap was put around it." The plaintiffs did not offer to furnish to the defendant the improved tiller-post, or notice in any way the fact that the machine had become disabled a second time. They waited four months without demanding pay for the machine, or making any suggestion about its use or return, and then commenced this action.
More from California Supreme Court
- People v. Wende (1979)
- People v. Watson (1956)
- People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996)
- People v. Kelly (2006)
- Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962)
- Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001)
- People v. Lewis (2021)
- In Re Estrada (1965)
- Denham v. Superior Court (1970)
- People v. Marsden (1970)