Buckeye Buggy Co. v. Montana Stables, Inc.

Citations

• 43 Wash. 49
• 85 P. 1077
• 1906 Wash. LEXIS 650

Syllabus

<p>Sales — Acceptance—Consideration—Parol Evidence to Explain. If a contract of sale of two vehicles for one sum is entire, the acceptance of one is equivalent to the acceptance of both, and parol evidence is inadmissible to explain the consideration.</p> <p>Same — Severable Contract. Where two vehicles were sold at the same time and the contract recited a single consideration for both, parol evidence is admissible to show that a separate price was agreed upon for each, as that does not contradict the writing; and in such case the contract is severable, and may be rescinded for sufficient «ause as to part and enforced as to the remainder.</p> <p>Same — Written Contract — Stipulation as to Parol Contemporaneous Agreement. A written order or contract entered into with an agent for the purchase of two vehicles, reciting on a printed form that no agreement shall be recognized unless written thereon, and that no verbal agreements will he recognized, cannot he varied by evidence of contemporaneous oral agreements.</p> <p>Sales — Defenses — Conformity to Contract — Answer—Sufficiency. Where a written contract for the sale of a vehicle calls for a regulation track and contains a memorandum for a “15 in. extension,” and, also, “Don’t want stiff bar Brake” an answer alleging a breach of the contract in that the wheels did not have the regulation track, and that it did not have the fifteen inch extension, and was equipped with the stiff bar brake, is sufficient to admit proof that the vehicle did not conform to the contract, justifying its nonacceptance.</p>