Bultman v. Frankart
| Decision Date | 11 October 1927 |
| Citation | 215 N.W. 432,194 Wis. 296 |
| Parties | BULTMAN v. FRANKART. |
| Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from a judgment of the Municipal Court for Brown County; N. J. Monahan, Judge Presiding.
Action by H. J. Bultman, doing business under the name of the H. J. Bultman Piano Company, against Louis Frankart. From a judgment dismissing the complaint, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.--[By Editorial Staff.]
The plaintiff is a piano dealer and on or about July 20, 1926, entered into a written contract with the defendant for the purchase of a piano at the agreed price of $575. The contract admitted the receipt of a down payment of $200. Thereafter the defendant refused to make the down payment or to go on with the contract and this action was begun by the plaintiff to recover the sum of $238, being the amount of the estimated profits the loss of which plaintiff had suffered.
It was the contention of the defendant that he signed the contract upon representations that it was not to be effectual until he had made the down payment, which he was to make within a few days after the signing of the contract. The contract remained in the possession of the plaintiff.
There was a jury trial and the jury found (1) that the plaintiff's agent, W. C. Freeman, represented to the defendant that the contract meant nothing until he (the defendant) had paid some money to the plaintiff as a down payment; (2) that Freeman knew the representation to be false; (3) that it was false; and (4) that the defendant relied upon it.
Judgment was entered, dismissing the plaintiff's complaint, from which the plaintiff appeals.Arthur A. Thiele, of Green Bay, for appellant.
North, Parker, Bie & Welsh, of Green Bay (Frederick N. Trowbridge, of Green Bay, of counsel), for respondent.
[1] It is urged very strenuously here that negotiations between the parties prior to and at the execution of the written contract were merged in it and could not be extended or contradicted by parol evidence. As a general principle that is undoubtedly sound, but to it there are some exceptions. Parol evidence is always admissible to show that a written contract not under seal was not to become effective until some future day or upon the happening of some contingency, provided the written conditions are not repugnant to the conditions sought to be established by parol. Golden v. Meier, 129 Wis. 14, 107 N. W. 27, 116 Am. St. Rep. 935;Gilman v. Gross, 97 Wis. 224, 72 N. W. 885.
[2][3] In this...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Garrison v. Bechtel Corp.
...the resulting defeasance is not for failure of a condition precedent but rather of condition subsequent. See Bultman v. Frankart, 194 Wis. 296, 215 N.W. 432, 433 (1927); Lilienthal, supra note 1, 28 N.E. at 151.The place of a union-initiated employment contract formation (locus contractus )......
-
Excalibur Auto. Corp., Matter of
...Bank v. Milwaukee Gear Co., Id. (quoting Tees v. Lee, 234 Wis. 607, 610, 291 N.W. 792, 793 (1940)). 6 See also, Bultman v. Frankart, 194 Wis. 296, 297, 215 N.W. 432, 433 (1927); Paulson v. Boyd, 137 Wis. 241, 247, 118 N.W. 841, 842 Excalibur further contends that the merger clauses in the a......
-
Kryl v. Mechalson
...contingency, provided the written conditions are not repugnant to the conditions sought to be established by parol.' Bultman v. Frankart, 194 Wis. 296, 215 N.W. 432, 433. '* * * the testimony rejected by the court was admissible for the purpose, not of varying the terms of a written instrum......
- Bro v. Moran