Armour & Co. v. Jesmer

Citations

• 76 Wash. 475
• 136 P. 689
• 1913 Wash. LEXIS 1843

Syllabus

<p>Sales — Performance or Breach — Action by Seller. — Evidence— Sufficiency. Tbe jury is warranted in finding that a contract for the sale of butter was not breached by underweights where tbe butter was packed in Minnesota and tbe weight stamped upon it at tbe time in compliance with tbe oleomargarine law, it was subject to some shrinkage, and no complaint was made when some of tbe rolls were found to be slightly under weight.</p> <p>Sales — Contracts—Legality—Acceptance and Delivery. A contract calling for tbe delivery of “renovated” butter being legal in itself, cannot be repudiated as illegal by reason of tbe fact that tbe butter was misbranded, under Rem. & Bal. Code, § 5447e, prohibiting its sale unless marked as “renovated butter,” where tbe purchaser accepted partial performance without objecting to the butter as misbranded or giving the seller an opportunity to re-mark it.</p> <p>Same — Legality—Violation oe Statute. Since a contract calling for the delivery of “renovated butter,” required by law to he branded as such, was not illegal and could be performed without violating any law, a purchaser accepting partial performance without demanding and receiving literal compliance with the statute, cannot repudiate the contract on the assumption that the seller will continue to violate the law; since the illegal acts did not enter into the promise or the consideration.</p>