Salzman v. Maldaver

Decision Date11 September 1946
Docket NumberNo. 47.,47.
Citation315 Mich. 403,24 N.W.2d 161
PartiesSALZMAN et al. v. MALDAVER et al.
CourtMichigan Supreme Court

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Action by Philip Salzman and Barney L. Barnett, copartners trading as the American Surplus Trading Company, against Fred Maldaver and Maurice Maldaver, individually, and as copartners trading under the firm name and style of the Michigan Salvage Company, to recover on first count for breach of express warranty, on second count for breach of implied warranty, and on third count for deceit and fraud. The trial court dismissed the first two counts of the declaration but denied defendants' motion to dismiss the third count, and the plaintiffs appeal, and the defendants cross-appeal.

Affirmed.Appeal from Circuit Court, Wayne County; Lila M. Neuenfelt, judge.

Before the Entire Bench.

Max Kahn, of Detroit, for plaintiffs, appellants, and cross-appellees.

William A. Rhodes, of Detroit, for defendants, appellees, and cross-appellants.

STARR, Justice.

Plaintiffs are engaged in business in New York City under the name of American Surplus Trading Company. Defendants are engaged in business in Detroit under the name of Michigan Salvage Company. On July 25, 1945, these parties entered into a contract which provided in part:

Party of the first part (defendants) agrees to sell, and party of the second part (plaintiffs) agrees to buy a surplus lot of approximately 790,000 pounds of offal aluminum sheets, various types, gauges, shapes, and sizes, list attached, less approximately 40,000 pounds of 24 S. T. in .025, .032, and .040 gauge which are to be deleted from list, leaving approximately 750,000 pounds in lot, at 11 5/8 cents per pound. The party of the first part does not guarantee the accuracy of the list, and the items and sizes on the list are approximate. * * *

‘Payment to be made as follows: $10,000 deposit, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, total balance of purchase price to be paid within sixty days from this date.

‘Material to be shipped in carload lots sight draft bill lading attached. Each carload is to be paid for at the rate of 11 5/8 cents plus 10 per cent. of 11 5/8 cents per pound as additional deposit. The above deposits are to be credited to last shipment or shipments.

‘It is understood that if the material is not shipped or paid for by party of second part within sixty days from date of this agreement, the party of the first part is to retain the deposits paid as liquidated damages. * * *

+-------------------------------------------------+
                ¦“Material located as follows:                    ¦
                +-------------------------------------------------¦
                ¦                               ¦    ¦            ¦
                +-------------------------------+----+------------¦
                ¦Steel Terminal Company         ¦App.¦360,000 lbs.¦
                +-------------------------------+----+------------¦
                ¦Ford Motor Co. Willow Run plant¦“   ¦225,000 lbs.¦
                +-------------------------------+----+------------¦
                ¦Ford Motor Co. Rouge plant     ¦“   ¦125,000 lbs.¦
                +-------------------------------+----+------------¦
                ¦Ford Motor Co. Lincoln plant   ¦“   ¦40,000 lbs. ¦
                +-------------------------------------------------+
                

‘It is understood that the party of the first part will pay for the loading of this material in carload lots, F. O. B., their present locations. It is further understood that the party of the first part will pay the storage charges on the material now located at Steel Terminals Company for a period not to exceed sixty days from date of this agreement.

‘Material located at Willow Run, Rouge and Lincoln plants are sold F. O. B. their present location. If shipping instructions are not received immediately, from party of second part, this material is to be shipped and stored at Steel Materials Company, at the expense of party of the second part.

Party of the second part further agrees to pay all expenses of sorting sizes, gauges, or types if they so desire.

‘The party of the second part has examined this material and understands that there are some odd-shaped pieces in this lot, such as half-moons and triangle shapes.’

Attached to the contract were nine pages showing the types, gauges, shapes, sizes, and amounts of aluminum covered by the contract. Trouble arose between the parties over the quality and condition of the aluminum, and in December, 1945, plaintiffs began the present suit for damages, They also caused writ of garnishment to be issued against several banks, including the Commonwealth Bank of Detroit. As the principal questions before the trial court and on this appeal relate to the allegations in plaintiffs' declaration, it is necessary to discuss the declaration in some detail. In the first count plaintiffs alleged the execution of the contract in question; that they had deposited with defendants the sum of $10,000; and that prior to the execution of the contract defendants had informed them that they had purchased the aluminum from the Ford Motor Company, which was disposing of it as surplus material. They further alleged:

Plaintiffs informed defendants that plaintiffs would be interested in purchasing said aluminum sheets as a dealer, provided the same were suitable for resale for manufacture into aluminum articles for consumption by the public, such as kitchenware and utensils, ash trays, lamps, clocks, juwelry, and other articles manufactured in all or in part of aluminum, and in which the aluminum showed in its natural state. Defendants represented to plaintiffs that said aluminum sheets were suitable and fit for the manufacture of such articles and kindred articles; that said sheets were new but comprised a lot of miscellaneous, large aluminum sheets, varying as to thickness, whdth and length; that the sizes were not standard sizes and to some extent parts of sheets had been stamped out for other uses, leaving only a portion, but a substantial portion, of a sheet remaining; that all of said sheets were bundled, wrapped in waterproof paper and banded and fully protected against the weather and that each bundle contained sheets generally uniform as to thickness, length and width, that said aluminum sheets had been under roof in dry storage, had not been exposed to moisture or sweating, had not been exposed to the air or any other substance that would cause corrosion; that said sheets were not corroded; that the sheets were protected from each other against air, moisture and scratching by paper sheets and that all of said aluminum was suitable for the manufacture of kitchenware and utensils, ash trays and other articles for public consumption, such as lamps, clocks, ornaments, juwelry, picture frames and, generally, all articles manufactured in whole or in part of aluminum in which aluminum appeared in its natural state.’

Plaintiffs alleged that in the course of their negotiations prior to the execution of the contract, defendants took them to the warehouse in Deroit, where a part of the aluminum was stored, for the purpose of showing them that the bundles of aluminum sheets had been securely and properly wrapped against exposure to the weather. They alleged that the bundles were piled in the warehouse to a height of 10 to 15 feet and were wrapped with waterproof paper and banded with metal straps; that they were unable to make any proper inspection of the bundled sheets and relied entirely on defendants' representations that the bundles contained aluminum sheets which were fit and suitable for manufacturing purposes. They alleged that after the contract was executed, they resold a part of the aluminum sheets to the Aircraft Metal Company of New York and instructed defendants to ship the same; that when the shipment was received, plaintiffs were notified by the Aircraft Company that the sheets were corroded and wholly unfit for commercial use; that they immediately inspected the shipment and found that the sheets were scratched and corroded and could not be used for the manufacture of aluminum products. They alleged that after their examination of the shipment to the Aircraft Company, thty notified defendants to make no further shipments; that thereafter they inspected the bundles of aluminum sheets stored in the warehouse in Detroit and found that all of the sheets, except the top one in each bundle, were corroded and unfit for use. They further alleged that they notified defendants that they would not accept further shipments; that they demanded repayment of their deposit of $10,000 and notified defendants that they would hold them liable for damages for breach of contract.

In the second count of their declaration plaintiffs realleged their claims relative to the aluminum sheets' being corroded and unfit for commercial use; that they had had no opportunity to inspect the sheets in the bundles stored in the Detroit warehouse; and that they had relied entirely on defendants' skill as dealers in aluminum and on their representations that the aluminum was fit for commercial use. They alleged that there was an implied warranty on the part of defendants that the aluminum was fit for use in the manufacture of kitchenware and other articles in which the aluminum would appear in its natural state; that defendants had breached this implied warranty by delivering corroded and damaged alumimum sheets which were unfit for this use.

In the third count in trespass on the case, plaintiffs alleged deceit and fraud; they claimed that defendants knew the aluminum sheets were corroded and damaged and deceived and defrauded them by causing the sheets to be packed in bundles with an undamaged sheet on top to cover the corroded and damaged sheets beneath.

Defendants moved to dismiss the declaration on the following grounds:

‘1. That the declaration in said cause, while based on a written contract between the parties, attempts by its allegations to change the terms of the written instrument by seeking damages for an alleged expressed warranty which is not a part of the contract of the parties.

‘2. That the declaration,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
30 cases
  • Heritage v. Caterpillar Financial
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Michigan (US)
    • June 30, 2009
    ...has long implicitly recognized that an express warranty is no different than any other term of the contract. See Salzman v. Maldaver, 315 Mich. 403, 412, 24 N.W.2d 161 (1946) (observing that "where a written contract is clear and unambiguous, parol evidence of prior negotiations and represe......
  • Performance Abatement v. Lansing Bd. of Water, 5-98-CV-70.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 6th Circuit. United States District Court (Western District Michigan)
    • August 6, 2001
    ...and have a definite meaning.'" quoting Michigan Chandelier Co. v. Morse, 297 Mich. 41, 49, 297 N.W. 64 (1941)); Salzman v. Maldaver, 315 Mich. 403, 24 N.W.2d 161, 165 (1946) (stating that, "[i]t is well established that where a written contract is clear and unambiguous, parol evidence of pr......
  • Andersons, Inc. v. Horton Farms, Inc., s. 96-2287
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (6th Circuit)
    • December 17, 1998
    ...Michigan, as in most states, the parol evidence rule is both a rule of evidence and a rule of substantive law. Salzman v. Maldaver, 315 Mich. 403, 24 N.W.2d 161, 165 (Mich.1946). And, as in most states, in Michigan, where the contract is clear and unambiguous on its face, the parol evidence......
  • Carrigg v. Gen. R.V. Ctr., Inc., 18-cv-13538
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 6th Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of Michigan)
    • September 30, 2019
    ...Heritage Res., Inc. v. Caterpillar Fin. Serv. Corp. , 284 Mich.App. 617, 774 N.W.2d 332, 342 (2009) (quoting Salzman v. Maldaver , 315 Mich. 403, 24 N.W.2d 161, 165 (1946) ). It is undisputed that the parties' agreement was put into writing in the form of the fully executed purchase agreeme......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT