Aultman & Taylor Machinery Co. v. Schierkolk

Citations

• 95 Kan. 737
• 149 P. 680
• 1915 Kan. LEXIS 285

Syllabus

<p>SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.</p> <p>1. Sale — Engine—Opportunity to Inspect — Fraudulent Representations — Question of Fact. One who after-contracting to buy an engine, subject to inspection, examines all of it except the fire-box, and omits to examine that because he could not do so without soiling his clothes, is not as a matter of law precluded from relying upon statements fraudulently made to him by the seller regarding its condition, or from making such statements the basis of a rescission of the contract for fraud. Whether a sufficient reason existed for omitting a complete inspection is a question of fact to be determined upon all the circumstances of the case.</p> <p>2. Sale — Fraudulent Representations — Laches in Electing to Rescind. The evidence held not to show conclusively, as a matter of law, that the election of a buyer to rescind a contract of sale for fraud was not made with sufficient promptness to be effective.</p> <p>3. Sale — Written Contract — -Prior or Contemporaneous Oral Representations — Not Competent. Where a written contract of sale is complete, and covers the matter of warranty, the buyer can not rely upon prior or contemporaneous oral representations as to the condition of the property as constituting a warranty.</p>