Fountain v. Hagan Gas Engine & Mfg. Co.

• Court: Georgia Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: LUMPKIN, J.
• Citation: Fountain v. Hagan Gas Engine & Mfg. Co., 140 Ga. 70, 78 S. E. 423 (Ga. 1913)
• Decision Date: 16 May 1913
• Parties: FOUNTAIN v. HAGAN GAS ENGINE & MFG. CO.

78 S.E. 423

140 Ga. 70

FOUNTAIN v. HAGAN GAS ENGINE & MFG. CO.

Supreme Court of Georgia

May 16, 1913

Syllabus by the Court.

The defendant sold to the plaintiff, under a written contract, an engine, pump, tank, "electric outfit," certain piping, and a grinder and boiler. In the contract it was provided that "the material and workmanship of the above is guaranteed to be good, and the engine, when installed and run according to your [the seller's] instructions, shall develop the horse power named above. This guaranty is good for six months, but does not apply to batteries." The purchaser afterward sued the seller, alleging that the latter had sold to him a storage battery, claiming that it had a capacity of 15 lights for 3 hours, and that the plaintiff paid therefor; that after the battery was put to work it was found that it only had a capacity of 6 lights for 3 hours. The plaintiff accordingly brought suit for damages, on the ground that the property was not of the character which he bought. Held, that the expression "electric outfit," as used in the written contract, was ambiguous and was subject to explanation by parol. It was accordingly error to reject parol testimony offered for the purpose of showing what the parties to the contract included in that expression.

(a) The statement that the guaranty of the engine was good for six months, but did not apply to batteries, merely excluded the application of the six-months guaranty from applying to the batteries, and did not mean...