Alabama Chemical Co. v. International Agr. Corporation
Decision Date | 14 October 1926 |
Docket Number | 3 Div. 771 |
Parties | ALABAMA CHEMICAL CO. v. INTERNATIONAL AGRICULTURAL CORPORATION. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied Jan. 6, 1927
Appeal from Circuit Court, Montgomery County; Walter B. Jones Judge.
Action by the International Agricultural Corporation against the Alabama Chemical Company. From a judgment for plaintiff defendant appeals. Affirmed.
Hill Hill, Whiting, Thomas & Rives and Ball & Ball, all of Montgomery, for appellant.
Marion Smith, of Atlanta, Ga., and Steiner, Crum & Weil, of Montgomery, for appellee.
The suit is upon a promissory note given for certain shipments of Florida land pebble phosphate rock for use in the manufacture of commercial fertilizer. The theory of the defense is that the product shipped was defective in quality for lack of content of bone phosphate of lime stipulated in the written contract of sale, for which defendant claims an abatement of the price equal to the unpaid balance of the note sued upon.
The pleadings raising the issues are voluminous, but our labors are reduced by a thoughtful concession on both sides that the controlling questions turn upon the legal construction of the contract. The pertinent provisions of the contract are:
It would be difficult to express the intent of the parties more clearly and exactly than in the language chosen by them. The rock was sold upon a prescribed standard of quality, an "absolute minimum" in content of bone phosphate of lime. Any shipment below the minimum was without the terms of the contract. Deliveries were conditioned upon the shipment coming within the standard of quality. Upon ascertainment in the manner provided that the product was without the terms of the contract, the buyer was free to reject and return it. If he elected to retain it, or had consumed it before acquiring knowledge of the fact, an implied contract arose to pay the reasonable market value of same.
The price was fixed on a basis grade with differentials for greater or less content bone phosphate of lime, subject to the absolute minimum. The major questions arise under the stipulations for "sampling and analysis." It is a form of sale upon or subject to inspection; inspection by third persons chosen by the parties for their special knowledge and equipment; the method of inspection by chemical analysis of samples selected subject to check of a...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Phillips v. Sipsey Coal Mining Co.
......et al. 6 Div. 823 Supreme Court of Alabama May 10, 1928 . . Rehearing. Denied Nov. 1, ... recent case of Ala. Chem. Co. v. International Agr. Co., 215 Ala. 381, 383, 110 So. 614, it was ......
-
BOARD OF WATER & SEWER COM'RS v. BILL HARBERT CONST. CO.
...an agreement ordinarily does not displace the authority of the courts to decide legal questions. In Alabama Chemical Co. v. International Agriculteral Corp., 215 Ala. 381, 110 So. 614 (1926), the Court considered a dispute on a contract governing the sale of phosphate rock used to manufactu......
-
Bartlett & Company, Grain v. Merchants Company
...to nullify his decision would make the chosen means of avoiding litigation — breed litigation. Alabama Chem. Co. v. International Agricultural Corp., 1926, 215 Ala. 381, 110 So. 614, 615. Nevertheless, a gross mistake in the inspection may suffice to overturn the inspection certificate. Her......
-
Regional Agr. Credit Corp. of Washington, D.C. v. Hendley
...37 So.2d 97 251 Ala. 261 REGIONAL AGRICULTURAL CREDIT CORPORATION OF WASHINGTON, D. C., v. HENDLEY. 4 Div. 454.Supreme Court of ... a peanut crop in the year of 1943 in Bullock County, Alabama;. that at the time of the execution and delivery of said note. it was ...See. Escambia County v. Dixie Chemical Products Co., 229. Ala. 287, 156 So. 631. . . Plea. 10, ... In the case of Alabama Chemical Co. v. International. Agricultural Corp., 215 Ala. 381, 110 So. 614, 615, in. speaking of ......