Coates & Sons v. Early

Citations

• 46 S.C. 220
• 24 S.E. 305
• 1896 S.C. LEXIS 64

Syllabus

<p>1. Evidence — Written Contract. — It is not competent for a party to testify as to the understanding which he had of a written contract, where the contract is not ambiguous, nor is it competent for him to testify as to the intention with which he signed such contract. Such writing must be construed by the court, and speaks for itself — following Asbill v. Asbill, 24 S. C., 359.</p> <p>2. Ibid.. — .Custom.—It. is not competent to explain by parol the terms of a plain written order for goods, by showing the custom among merchants in ordering that class of goods.</p> <p>3. Rescission of Contract. — A contract ordering goods cannot be rescinded after goods are shipped.</p> <p>4. Contract — Mistake.—In order tó relieve a party of the consequences of an honest mistake, it must be shown that the other party to the contract in some way caused the mistake, and that party making the mistake could not by due diligence have avoided it.</p>