Kalamazoo Corset Co. v. Simon

Citations

• 129 F. 144
• 1903 U.S. App. LEXIS 5250

Syllabus

<p>1. Contracts — Construction—Usage.</p> <p>While proof of a general usage is admissible to explain a contract, in the absence of express stipulations, or where the meaning of the parties is uncertain, from the language used, usage cannot be shown to vary the legal import of the contract as made, or to add new terms thereto.</p> <p>2. Same — Application of Usage.</p> <p>Where numerous lots of corsets were offered for sale by letter as a “job lot” and as an entirety, the letter stating that “the enclosed stock sheet shows the quantity of each style and color,” and that “the proportion of sizes,” as shown, “is nearly perfect,” which offer defendant declined, but selected and offered to take three of the lots as specified in the stock sheet, the acceptance of defendant’s offer made a contract based on express stipulations, which was not within a usage that, in the purchase of job lots, the buyer is not obligated if the variation in the deliveries is considerable, and that it rests with the buyer to determine whether the discrepancy is reasonable or unreasonable.</p> <p>3. Same — Validity—Definiteness.</p> <p>A usage that, in sales of job lots of goods, the buyer is not obligated if the variation in the quantity delivered is considerable, and that it rests with the buyer to determine whether the discrepancy is reasonable or unreasonable, no definite test being recognized, is invalid for uncertainty.</p> <p>4. Same — Performance of Contract — Substantial Variations.</p> <p>Where defendant purchased three job lots of corsets, represented on plaintiff’s stock list as containing 25ln>/i2 doz., 20411/12 doz., and 8OV12 doz., and the deliveries offered contained 266% doz., 267i/i2 doz., and 78 doz., the variance was substantial, and entitled the buyer to refuse acceptance.</p> <p>5. Same — Question for Court.</p> <p>Where, in an action for breach of a contract of sale, the facts were undisputed, and a verdict for plaintiff would be unsupported by testimony or legitimate infe