Virginia Kid Co. v. New Castle Leather Co.

Citations

• 27 Del. 511
• 4 Boyce 511
• 89 A. 367
• 1913 Del. LEXIS 74

Syllabus

<p>1. Sales—Passing of Title—Right to Inspect.</p> <p>A buyer’s right to inspect a machine, and reject the same if not in accordance with the contract, does not prevent the transfer of title and risk to the buyer, on the delivery of the machine to the carrier for transportation to the buyer.</p> <p>2. Sales—Warranty—What Constitutes—Affirmation of Facts.</p> <p>Every affirmation by a seller, at the time of a sale, as a fact and as an inducement to the sale, if relied on by the buyer, amounts to a warranty.</p> <p>3. Sales—Character of Articles—Particular Use—Implied Warranty.</p> <p>Where an article is sold for a particular use, there is an implied warranty that the article is fit for the purpose, and, if it is of no use whatever for that purpose, there is a total failure of consideration for the contract.</p> <p>4. Sales—Rights of Buyer—Inspection.</p> <p>Where a buyer received a machine from a carrier, the buyer had a reasonable time within which to inspect it and determine whether it complied with the conditions of the contract, and if, after such examination, it was decided that the parts did not conform to the conditions, it might be returned; but if such right is not exercised within a reasonable time it is waived.</p> <p>5. Sales—Contract—Meeting of Minds.</p> <p>Plaintiff purchased a machine about April 6, 1906, and used it at intervals, about six months, in a period of two years. Thereafter plaintiff sold it to defendant under a representation that the machine had only run about six months and was as good as new. Held, that such representation was ambiguous, and, if defendants were authorized therefrom reasonably to .understand that the machine was new about six months before the date of the representation, and with such understanding purchased the machine,’ then there was no meeting of the minds, and no contract of sale.</p>