Price v. Stanbra

Citations

• 45 Wash. 143
• 88 P. 115
• 1906 Wash. LEXIS 939

Syllabus

<p>Contracts — Parol Evidence to Contradict Writing. Parol evidence is admissible to show that a written contract for the sale of goods has been changed, and did not correspond with the contract signed or the one actually made.</p> <p>Same — Sufficiency. The uncontradicted evidence of two witnesses that an order for the sale of goods was signed as the agent was about to leave for a train, under an agreement that its terms would be changed to correspond with the agreement of the parties, is sufficient to overcome the written agreement, where the writing did not correspond to the agreement sought to be enforced.</p> <p>Sales — Definiteness—Rescission by Buyer — Question for Jury. In an action for goods sold and delivered upon an indefinite order, taken by a salesman, leaving much to the discretion of the vendor in filling it, the question whether the buyer was justified in refusing to accept the goods on the ground that they were not the goods ordered is for the jury, where there was evidence to the effect that the articles most desired and which the buyer insisted should constitute the bulk of the order were omitted entirely, leaving the entire order to consist of jewelry which he particularly informed the salesman he had little use for.</p> <p>Sales — Acceptance. Taking goods from a carrier, and holding them subject to the vendor’s order, does not amount to an acceptance of the goods, although the goods were first returned to the carrier to be returned to the vendor, where the carrier threatened to sell for shipment and storage charges.</p>