Leavenworth State Bank v. Cashmere Apple Co.

Citations

• 118 Wash. 356
• 204 P. 5
• 1922 Wash. LEXIS 682

Syllabus

<p>Sales (3) — Distinguished From Contract for Manufacture. A written contract calling for the sale and delivery of a certain number of apple boxes “now manufactured” and an additional number “to be manufactured” is a contract of manufacture and sale.</p> <p>Evidence (174, 179) — To Vary Writing — Construction of Contract — Intent—Extrinsic Evidence. Under a contract for the sale and manufacture of apple boxes, with a provision making it “subject to fires,” oral evidence is admissible, in an action to recover damages for tbe nondelivery of tbe boxes “to be manufactured,” to show that the buyer knew when be entered into the contract that tbe seller bad but one plant, which was subsequently destroyed by fire before full delivery could be made.</p> <p>Sales (72) — Performance of Contract — Quantity Delivered — • Effect of Deficiency. Under a contract for tbe sale of 75,000 boxes “now manufactured and in stock” at tbe seller’s mill, tbe seller would be liable for any shortage in the number, although tbe pile of boxes bad been inspected by tbe buyer, where tbe latter did not rely upon such examination but was assured by the mill company that the pile contained sufficient to supply the order, it being incumbent on the seller and not the buyer to know whether there was sufficient in stock.</p> <p>Same (37, 77) — Construction of Contract — Conditions—Excuses tor Failure to Deliver — Loss of Plant by Fire. Where there was a shortage in the number of manufactured apple boxes at the seller’s mill which a written contract of sale required to be delivered to the buyer, a subsequent oral agreement between the parties that the difference should be made up by manufacture at the seller’s mill constituted an independent contract, and the seller could not take advantage of a clause in the written contract excusing performance in case of fire.</p>