Kinnard-Haines Co. v. Dillingham
| Decision Date | 30 July 1918 |
| Docket Number | 9379. |
| Citation | 175 P. 208,73 Okla. 129,1918 OK 421 |
| Parties | KINNARD-HAINES CO. v. DILLINGHAM. |
| Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied Sept. 24, 1918.
Syllabus by the Court.
Where the parties reduce their contract to writing, all oral negotiations, statements, and representations and inducements leading up to the execution thereof are merged therein, and the rights of the parties must be determined and measured by the terms of the written instrument itself.
In such case, the law with reference to implied warranty does not apply; and, in an action for a breach of the warranty by the buyer against the seller, an instruction, which by its terms authorizes a recovery for a breach of an implied warranty, is error.
Commissioners' Opinion, Division No. 3. Error from District Court, Garfield County; James B. Cullison, Judge.
Action by the Kinnard-Haines Company against D. J. Dillingham. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff brings error. Reversed and remanded.
P. C Simons, of Enid, for plaintiff in error.
H. Z Wedgwood, of Enid, for defendant in error.
The company instituted this suit in the lower court to recover a judgment upon two notes which had been executed and delivered to it by Dillingham as a part of the purchase price of a tractor sold and delivered to him by it in December, 1912 and for the purpose of foreclosing a chattel mortgage executed to secure the payment of said notes, and also to recover a judgment upon an open account for goods sold and delivered by it to him. To the petition in this case the defendant filed an answer which consisted of a general denial, and the further defense that in April, 1912, he had purchased from the company a 30 horse power tractor which was warranted to do certain things and to furnish certain power, and that the warranty thus made by the company upon said machine failed, and that the tractor was unsatisfactory, and that in December, 1912, the company agreed that the 30 horse power tractor might be traded to it by him, and for that and the sum of $500 it agreed to and did deliver to him the 40 horse power tractor involved in this action, and that at this time he executed his note to the company for the sum of $500, which represented the cash difference between the two machines, and the sum of $951 represented the amount due by him upon the 30 horse power tractor. It is further alleged in said answer that, as an inducement for him to buy said 40 horse power tractor, the company warranted that the same would do certain things and furnish a certain amount of power, and relying thereupon he had purchased the same and executed the notes sued upon here. It is further alleged that these representations were untrue, and that the warranty thus made by the company as to the power and quality and efficiency of the 40 horse power tractor had failed, and as a result thereof he had been damaged in a sum in excess of the amount sued for here. In said answer it is admitted that, at the time that the defendant made this contract with the company and executed said notes, he had made and delivered to the company a written order for said tractor, the essential parts of which order will be stated hereinafter. To this answer the company filed a reply which was a general denial and a further defense that the tractor in question was purchased under a written contract as set out therein, and that the warranties contained therein were the only warranties made by the company in reference to said tractor, and that the same had been fully complied with, and, if any trouble had been experienced in operation of said machine by the defendant, the same was due to lack of knowledge or understanding in the operation thereof. And it is further alleged in said reply that the defendant had failed to comply with the conditions, requirements, and terms relating to said warranties, and thereby estopped himself from relying upon the same as a defense to this action.
The essential parts of the written order are as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial