W. P. Fuller & Co. v. Harris

Citations

• 48 Wash. 519
• 93 P. 1080
• 1908 Wash. LEXIS 909

Syllabus

<p>Sales — Action for Price — Evidence—Admissibility—Quality of Goods. Where, upon a claim of a breach of a warranty of shellac sold for finishing furniture, defendants in an action for the price had introduced evidence ténding to show that it was adulterated and worthless and that it flaked and chipped off after it had been treated with a glue preparation, it is competent for the plaintiff to show in rebuttal that, at defendant’s request, a witness had sold an inferior quantity of glue to them, which if used on the .furniture would have produced the effects ascribed by the defendant to the quality of the shellac, there being direct evidence that the shellac was of good quality.</p> <p>Same — Trial—Instructions — Errors Cured — Breach of Warranty — Delay in Making Claim. It is not prejudicial error to instruct that delay for a long time in asserting a claim for damages for breach of warranty for shellac sold is a circumstance against the good faith of the claim, where a further instruction was given to the effect that the party was under no obligation to return the property on discovery of the breach but could retain the same and recover his damages, in the absence of any request for any other instructions on the subject or any explanation of the instruction complained of.</p>