Gwinn v. Heydon

Citations

• 112 Wash. 664
• 192 P. 914
• 1920 Wash. LEXIS 755

Syllabus

<p>Sales (103)—Warranty—Breach—Evidence—Sufficiency. An action on promissory notes given for the price of a new harvester to be shipped from the factory, and warranted to do good work, must fail for want of consideration and failure to deliver the machine, where it appears that the company sent from a neighbor’s farm an old machine out of repair, with an expert to make it work, and who was unable to do so, and the contract was never consummated by acceptance of the order and the giving of a chattel mortgage as contemplated.</p> <p>Same (103). In such a case, the fact that the prospective purchaser paid the wages of the expert after the first few days while trying to make the harvester work satisfactorily, does not show that the machine was delivered by the company.</p> <p>Same (118)—Warrants—Breach—Waiver by Failing to Gjve Notice. In such a case, the failure to give written notice to the company within six days as to the failure of the machine to do good work, as provided in the contract, so that an expert could be sent to remedy the defects, is not a waiver of the warranty, where the company had notice of the defects and its expert was already at work on the machine, and before the expiration of six days after the expert finished, the company brought suit on the note.</p> <p>Same (115)—-Warranty—Breach—Opportunity to Remedy Defects—Waiver of Condition. In such a case, the requirement that the purchaser deliver the machine, if defective, at a certain place, is waived where the company, after notice of breach of the warranty, denied the breach and demanded payment, threatening suit to enforce the same.</p>