Everson v. International Granite Co.
| Citation | 27 A. 320,65 Vt. 658 |
| Parties | EVERSON & CO v. INTERNATIONAL GRANTITE COMPANY |
| Decision Date | 14 September 1893 |
| Court | Vermont Supreme Court |
GENERAL TERM, 1893
Assumpsit. Plea, the general issue. Trial by court the September term, 1892, TAFT, J., presiding. Judgment for the defendant. The plaintiffs except. It appeared from the findings of fact and the letters referred to that the plaintiffs contracted in writing with the defendant to furnish them two granite monuments for $ 115 each; that the contract was made on the part of the defendant by its treasurer, who at that time was unacquainted with the business, had no personal knowledge of the price what he was selling, but relied upon the estimate of his foreman for that information, and so informed plaintiffs the time the contract was made; that the price given by the foreman was, owing to some mistake, the nature of which did not clearly appear, $ 100 too small on each monument, and that the plaintiffs contracted with knowledge this mistake.
Judgment affirmed.
J C. Baker for the plaintiffs.
Before TYLER, MUNSON, START AND THOMPSON, JJ.
It is said in the statement of facts that the contract sued upon was made by a member of the defendant firm who had no personal knowledge of the prices of monuments, and who was acting under a mistake of fact as to the price of the monuments sold. Certain letters of the defendant firm, written after the making of the contract, are referred to as a part of the statement of facts. We understand this to mean that the letters are embodied in the statement as showing the nature of the mistake and how it came to be made. It appears from the letters that the sale was made at prices given by the defendants' foreman, and that the mistake occurred in his estimates.
The partner's ignorance of the prices of the goods sold by his firm is not the controlling feature of the case. The rights and liabilities of the proprietor of a business are not to be determined solely from a consideration of the knowledge which he personally has of the business. He is entitled to conduct a business of which he is ignorant, in reliance upon the experience and knowledge of an employe. In a business thus conducted the mistake of the employe is not to be imputed to the ignorance of the proprietor. The member of the defendant firm who concluded this contract did not undertake to transact the business upon his own knowledge, but acted solely upon the estimates furnished by the foreman. The firm is entitled to the same relief from the consequences of a mistake made by its foreman that it would have been entitled to if the foreman had been a member of the firm and had closed the contract himself. The determination of the case depends upon the view which may be taken of the mistake made by the foreman.
The mistake in this case is certainly not identical with that in Harran v. Foley, 62 Wis. 584, 22 N.W. 837. There the error was in failing to give the price which the seller had decided upon. The seller had certain figures in mind and intended to give them, but by a mere slip of the tongue, which the buyer understood to be such, he gave other figures. While thinking of one thing he said another, and the buyer knew that what he said was not what he had in mind. In this case there was no difficulty in holding that the minds of the parties did not meet upon the price named.
The mistake relied upon in Griffin v. O'Neil, 48 Kan. 117, 29 P. 143, differed somewhat from the one above considered. In this case the vendor claimed that his price was determined by footing incorrectly an itemized valuation of the property offered for sale, and that the buyer was looking upon the paper while he was making the addition. Here the vendor gave the figures he intended to give, but the figures were the result of an error in his computation. The court was of opinion that the buyer could not take advantage of a miscalculation of this character of which he had knowledge.
A similar mistake was considered in ...
To continue reading
Request your trial