Schultz v. Simmons Fur Co.

Citations

• 46 Wash. 555
• 90 P. 917
• 1907 Wash. LEXIS 663

Syllabus

<p>Contracts — Ambiguity—Parol Evidence to Explain — Construction — Question for Jury. A letter offering employment to a fur cutter at $25 a week for tke “busy season” and $20 for the “dull season” is ambiguous, authorizing the admission of oral evidence to explain the terms as used in the fur trade, making the- interpretation of the contract a question for the jury.</p> <p>Same — Terms of Contract. A letter offering employment to a fur cutter, dated October 28, 1905, stating that “I have no doubt that it will be all year round” and ending, “I will give you $25 a week for six months for the busy season and give you $20 a week for the dull season,” is properly construed by the jury to be a contract of employment for one year, when it is explained by the oral testimony that the six months of the busy season were the following Novemher and December of that year, and January, August, September and October of the next year, since in no other way could effect be given to the promise to pay $25 a week for six months.</p> <p>Contracts — Mutuality—Acceptance. A letter offering employment for one year is a complete contract as soon as accepted, and there is no lack of mutuality after beginning performance.</p> <p>Appeal — Review—Verdicts. A verdict upon conflicting evidence will not be disturbed on appeal where there is sufficient evidence to sustain it.</p> <p>Trial — Misconduct op Jury. A verdict should not be disturbed on account of misconduct of the jury, alleged by two of the jurors, where the same is contradicted by affidavits of seven other jurors.</p> <p>Judgment — Entry—Appeal—Harmless Error. Failure to enter judgment against appellant immediately after the rendition of a verdict, and that it was not signed until after denial of a new trial, are mere irregularities, and harmless error when no prejudice appears.</p>