Griffin v. Star Printing Co.

Citations

• 24 Del. 169
• 1 Boyce 169
• 74 A. 1072
• 1910 Del. LEXIS 14

Syllabus

<p>Sale of Goods—Action to Recover Damages—False and Fraudulent Representations—Opportunity to Inspect—Duty to Inspect— Acceptance of Bill of Sale—Parol Evidence to Impeach— Fraud Must be Proved—Evidence of Breach of Warranty not Admissible under Allegations of Fraud.</p> <p>1. No action for damages can be maintained against the seller of goods and chattels for false and fraudulent representations as to their quality, if the buyer could, by ordinary diligence, have ascertained it for himself; and especially so, if the buyer was given full opportunity for inspection before concluding the transaction.</p> <p>2. An action to recover damages for false and fraudulent representations in the sale of goods and chattels cannot be maintained, in the absence of proof that the seller knowingly made such representations, with intent to deceive, on which the buyer, in ignorance, relied to his damage.</p> <p>3. A bill of sale with schedule of the goods sold annexed, evidencing the agreement reached between the buyer and the seller, and accepted by the buyer, cannot, in the absence of fraud on the part of the seller, be varied or modified by paroi evidence.</p> <p>4. Parol evidence is admissible to attack a bill of sale, if the sale itself was effected by fraud.</p> <p>5. Fraud is never presumed, but must be proved, and the burden of proving it is upon the party alleging it.</p> <p>6. In an action by a buyer against a seller in which all the counts in the declaration allege fraud and deceit, evidence of a breach of warranty is not admissible.</p> <p>7. In order to introduce evidence of a breach of warranty of quality of goods sold, it is necessary to declare upon such breach.</p> <p>8. If a buyer undertakes to recover damages for false and fraudulent representations in the sale of goods, the burden of proof is upon him to establish such fraud by clear and satisfactory evidence.</p>