Wright v. Seattle Grocery Co.
Citations
- 105 Wash. 383
- 177 P. 818
- 1919 Wash. LEXIS 581
Syllabus
<p>Frauds, Statute of (37)—Sale of Goods—Memorándum—Sufficiency. A memorandum showing the date, name and address of the purchaser and the statement of goods sold with the agreed price, is a sufficient compliance with the statute of frauds, although all the details are not stated and the complaint alleges an agreement partly oral and partly written.</p> <p>Appeal (389)—Review—Amendments. Under Rem. Code, §1752, requiring disregard of technicalities and amendments considered as made, defects in a complaint capable of amendment are not material when the cause was tried as if upon a sufficient complaint.</p> <p>Frauds, Statute of (38)—Sale of Goods—Memorandum—Signature. Rem. Code, § 5290, requiring a note or memorandum of a sale of goods exceeding fifty dollars to be “signed by the party to be charged thereby” is satisfied where it is signed by and may be enforced against the seller, although not signed by the purchaser.</p> <p>Same (38)—Sale of Goods. The use, by the seller of flour, of a blank form, with its name printed at the top, .filled out by its authorized agent showing the terms of the contract of sale, is a sufficient “signing” of the contract by the seller to satisfy the statute of frauds.</p> <p>Same (37)—Hale of Goods — Memorandum — Sufficiency. A memorandum of a sale of flour setting forth the purchaser and seller, the quantity and character of the goods, the price therefor and the date of sale, shows a complete contract and satisfies the statute of frauds, although time and place of delivery were not given.</p> <p>Sales (34, 35)—Delivery—Time and Place. Where the time and place of delivery of goods sold are not specified there is a presumption of a reasonable time; and both parties doing business in the same city, a like presumption fixes that point as the place of delivery.</p> <p>Evidence (175)'—Parol Evidence to Vary Writing—Ambiguity. Parol evidence explaining what was meant by “1 car” of flour, and showing amount contained in a car shipped at the tim
Judges: Fullerton, MacKintosh
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
9 cases in this archive cite this case.
- Coleman v. St. Paul & Tacoma Lumber Co.Washington Supreme Court· 1920-03-18· cited 28×
- Dineen v. SullivanMontana Supreme Court· 1949-10-13· cited 20×
- Hankins v. American Pacific Sales Corp.Court of Appeals of Washington· 1972-07-17· cited 12×
- Friedl v. BensonCourt of Appeals of Washington· 1980-02-19· cited 12×
- Upton Mill & Elevator Co. v. Baldwin Flour MillsSupreme Court of Minnesota· 1920-11-19· cited 11×
- Western MacHinery Company, a Corporation v. Northwestern Improvement Company, a CorporationNinth Circuit· 1958-02-05· cited 7×
- Prigge v. OlsonNebraska Supreme Court· 1951-03-30· cited 4×
- Hurley v. Liberty Lake Co.Washington Supreme Court· 1920-08-13· cited 2×
- Lewis v. Elliot Bay Logging Co.Washington Supreme Court· 1920-08-04· cited 2×
Cites
7 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- Anderson v. Wallace Lumber & Manufacturing Co.Washington Supreme Court· 1902-10-01· cited 29×
- Western Timber Co. v. Kalama River Lumber Co.Washington Supreme Court· 1906-05-10· cited 21×
- Dinuba Farmers' Union Packing Co. v. J. M. Anderson Grocer Co.Missouri Court of Appeals· 1916-02-08· cited 17×
- Tingley v. Bellingham Bay Boom Co.Washington Supreme Court· 1893-02-02· cited 10×
- Bowers v. WhitneySupreme Court of Minnesota· 1902-12-26· cited 9×
- Nut House v. Pacific Oil MillsWashington Supreme Court· 1918-05-06· cited 8×
- Samuel D. Linton & Co. v. WilliamsSupreme Court of Georgia· 1858-06-15· cited 5×
Other cases named Wright v. Seattle Grocery Co.
1 other CourtListener record shares this case name.
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.