Owensboro Wagon Co. v. Benton Mercantile Co.
Decision Date | 13 May 1920 |
Docket Number | 4 Div. 873 |
Citation | 85 So. 723,204 Ala. 415 |
Parties | OWENSBORO WAGON CO. v. BENTON MERCANTILE CO. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
On Rehearing, June 30, 1920
Appeal from Circuit Court, Covington County; A.B. Foster, Judge.
Action by the Owensboro Wagon Company against the Benton Mercantile Company in assumpsit. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals. Transferred from Court of Appeals under Acts 1911 p. 450, § 6. Reversed and remanded.
J.L Murphy and A.R. Powell, both of Andalusia, for appellant.
E.O Baldwin, of Andalusia, for appellee.
The suit was for balance claimed on a contract of purchase of wagons. The case was tried on an agreed statement of facts, before the judge without a jury, and judgment rendered for the defendant.
On September 8, 1917, plaintiff's salesman and defendant entered into a written agreement by which defendant would furnish specifications for 10 to 40 wagons to be shipped defendant about October 1st. The writing stated the terms of settlement for the purchase as follows:
"Agree to settle for the above by notes due at 6 months net, or in cash less a discount of 5 per cent. if paid within December 1st days, or _____ per cent. discount to be allowed if notes are paid promptly within _____ days months from date of invoice"
--and contained a clause that the contract was "subject to countermand," and that the order was taken subject to the approval of the plaintiff at its Owensboro office in Kentucky. Plaintiff, by letter, acknowledged receipt of this contract declared its approval, called for specifications, and stated that its factory was working "day and night endeavoring to make wagons fast enough to supply the demand," and as a necessity for immediate specifications stated it required "four to six weeks to make shipment after *** specifications are received."
Defendant sent definite specifications on September 27th, and accompanied the same with different terms of payment than contained in the original order to which approval had been given by plaintiff in its letter of September 4th. This modified or new order contained no right of countermand, and stated as the terms of payment, "Agree to settle for the above by February 1, 1918, net of 5 per cent. 30 and 90 days, less 5 per cent. one-third June 15, 1918, one-third April 1, one-third June 1, 1918," and stipulated that the order was "taken subject to the approval of the Owensboro Wagon Company at their office in Owensboro, Ky."
The record recites admission by defendant that plaintiff would testify as to having written a letter on October 3d to defendant, stating that it could not accept the order as so modified by extension of the time for payment as indicated, advised that on October 1st it had issued notice of withdrawal of all prices on wagons and an advance of 10 per cent., further stating that since the original order was placed a few days before the advance, plaintiff was willing to give advantage of prices then indicated--February 1, 1918, net or 5 per cent. discount if paid 60 days from date of invoice, or would make half 30 and half 90 days, less 5 per cent., if divided into two payments; that reply was required by return mail "or not later than next Monday, the 8th inst., if you desire to take advantage of these prices." Defendant's testimony was to the effect that it did not receive plaintiff's letter of October 3d; that it did not deny the receipt of the letter of October 8th making specific reference to the change of terms declined by letter of October 3d. On October 8th plaintiff, writing defendant, acknowledging requested change of specifications on one car of wagons, stated:
Plaintiff introduced in evidence telegram from defendant of October 18th: --and the reply: "Can ship car three to four weeks ten per cent. advance our order September twenty seventh terms per our letter October 30th. Answer." The bill of exceptions recites that the plaintiff introduced the following letter dated October 20, 1917, and admitted that defendant would swear it did not receive same, and defendant admitted that plaintiff would swear it wrote, addressed to defendant at Opp, Ala., mailed and prepaid postage:
Plaintiff introduced defendant's telegram of October 20th, "Ship car wagons early as possible," and plaintiff's reply that the order was entered in the factory for best attention, and that there would "be some delay in making shipment, for practically all orders have to be manufactured expressly now." So the preshipment correspondence closes. Thereafter followed the correspondence looking to a collection of the amount per advance of 10 per cent. from price stated in original contract of date September 8, 1917, the defendant insisting on a reduction of $166.30, which was denied by plaintiff.
The change of contract on defendant's part from that finding statement in the written instrument of September 8, 1917, cast the burden on defendant to show acceptance by plaintiff of the terms of the contract and how changed; that is to say, to establish acceptance by plaintiff's Owensboro office of the terms of the modified contract. So long as the right of countermand or rescission remains, the contract is not binding on the parties. Dowling-Martin Gro. Co. v. Lysle Milling Co., 83 So. 486; Home Guano Co. v. Int. Agri. Corp., 85 So. 713; Jones v. Lanier, 198 Ala. 363, 367, 73 So. 535; Wood v. Lett, 195 Ala. 601, 607, 71 So. 177; McGowin Lbr. Co. v. Camp Lbr. Co., 192 Ala. 35, 68 So. 263; Comer v. Bankhead, 70 Ala. 136, 144; Eskridge v. Glover, 5 Stew. & P. 264, 26 Am.Dec. 344.
It must be admitted that the contract of September 8th amounted to no more than a mere option to purchase or agreement to sell the articles...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Tuscaloosa Lumber Co. v. Tropical Paint & Oil Co.
... ... 313; Dorsey ... v. Peppers, 202 Ala. 321, 80 So. 403; Owensboro ... Wagon Co. v. Benton Mercantile Co., 204 Ala. 415, 85 So ... 723; ... ...
-
Benton Mercantile Co. v. Owensboro Wagon Co.
...plaintiff to the defendant are assigned as errors by the defendant. This case has been before this court before, and is reported in 204 Ala. 415, 85 So. 723. September 8, 1917, plaintiff's salesman and defendant entered into an agreement subject to approval of plaintiff, to purchase 10 to 4......