Horigan v. Chalmers Motor Co.

• Decision Date: 04 October 1913
• Citation: 111 Me. 111,88 A. 357
• Parties: HORIGAN v. CHALMERS MOTOR CO.
• Court: Maine Supreme Court

88 A. 357

111 Me. 111

HORIGAN

v. CHALMERS MOTOR CO.

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.

Oct. 4, 1913.

Exceptions from Supreme Judicial Court, York County.

Action by Cornelius Horigan against the Chalmers Motor Company. Verdict for defendant, and plaintiff excepts. Exceptions overruled.

Argued before SAVAGE, C. J., and SPEAR, CORNISH, BIRD, and PHILBROOK, JJ.

Robert B. Seidel, of Biddeford, for plaintiff.

Franklin R. Chesley, of Saco, for defendant.

SAVAGE, C. J. Action for breach of a contract of guaranty. The plaintiff purchased an automobile of the defendant company, and as a part of the trade received its guaranty of freedom from defect in material and workmanship for one year from date of delivery. At the conclusion of the plaintiff's evidence the presiding justice directed a verdict for the defendant, to which direction the plaintiff excepted.

The case turns on a single point The plaintiff claimed that he discovered certain defects in the car, which were covered by the guaranty, and so notified the defendant. The parts claimed to be defective were various bearings, in one of which, the crank shaft bearing, a ball was broken. The parts alleged to be defective were shipped to the defendant in accordance with the terms of the guaranty. The defendant denied any liability whatever, except possibly for the crank shaft bearing. Several letters passed between the parties, in which the plaintiff insisted that his claim was valid, and the defendant insisted with equal force that it was not. Finally the defendant wrote the plaintiff a letter in which, after arguing the question from its standpoint, it said:

"It is not your fault—neither is it ours— but we are taking a broad view of the matter, simply with a desire to help you, as a Chalmers owner, out of your troubles at a minimum of expense to you, for you have been put in wrong by the people who worked on your car, and, if it is possible for you to do so, we would suggest that you make them stand the brunt of the charges. Simply with this desire to help you, we will be willing, in addition to replacing gratis the one crank shaft bearing that had a broken ball, to send you the other bearings and simply charge you with the actual cost of the same. We do not know of a more liberal offer we could make you under the conditions, and we feel sure that after reading this letter you will appreciate that this is simply done for you and no one else.

"If we followed out the terms of our guaranty, we would not do anything whatever in the matter, for one of the conditions of our guaranty is as follows: 'This guaranty is such that our liability under it ceases when parts claimed as defective are replaced outside the Chalmers factory or the shops of Chalmers dealers.' * * * If you accept our offer, and we feel sure you will, we would request that we be authorized to ship these bearings either to you or to our sub-dealer in your city, Mr. C. A. Welch."

In reply to this letter the plaintiff telegraphed to the defendant as follows: "Ship, first express, complete set bearings through subagent C. A. Welch for my car." The bearings were shipped accordingly, and billed to the plaintiff in accordance with the terms of the offer.

The defendant contends that the telegram of the plaintiff was an acceptance of its offer, and that the offer and the telegram constituted an accord, and the shipping and receipt of the new bearings a satisfaction, of the claim of the plaintiff under the guaranty; that it was, in effect, the substitution of a new contract under such conditions as to be a waiver of the claim under the guaranty.

The plaintiff, on the other hand, contends that the language of the defendant's offer was so vague, general, and...