Hirschburg Optical Co. v. S. A. Jackson & Co.

Citations

• 63 Miss. 21

Syllabus

<p>1. Written Contract. Parol evidence. Fraud.</p> <p>Parol evidence, the effect of which is not to vary or modify a written contract, hut to show that it is not binding because of fraud therein, is admissible in a suit to enforce such contract.</p> <p>2. Same. Fraudulent representations. Effect.</p> <p>If an agent in offering goods for sale falsely represents to the buyer, who is ignorant as to the quality of the goods so offered, that A B, in whose judgment as to such goods the buyer has confidence, had given him an order for this class of goods and was a, regular customer of the agent’s principal,.and thereby the buyer is induced to enter into a contract for the- purchase of such goods as he cannot honestly offer to his customers, such representation is fraudulent and vitiates the contract.</p> <p>3. Same. Fraud therein, whether waived. Acceptance of-goods.</p> <p>Where under a contract tainted with fraud goods are left without the knowledge of the buyer in his place of business by a third party, who has a general authority to deliver such goods as the buyer shall receive at the express office, and the same are returned to the seller as soon as the box containing them is oplhed and they are discovered, this does not constitute an acceptance under the contract of purchase.</p>