Sanders v. Allis Chalmers Mfg. Co.
| Decision Date | 15 August 1960 |
| Docket Number | No. 17698,17698 |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | Willis SANDERS, Respondent, v. ALLIS CHALMERS MANUFACTURING COMPANY, Appellant. |
McKay, McKay, Black & Walker, Columbia, James J. Bush, Jr., Barnwell, for appellant.
Blatt & Fales, Barnwell, for respondent.
This case has been before this Court previously, see Sanders v. Allis Chalmers Manufacturing Company, 235 S.C. 259, 111 S.E.2d 201.
Plaintiff purchased from one of defendant's dealers in Barnwell County a combine and other equipment which he alleges in his complaint was incapable of performing as represented to him by one Frank E. Lee, an authorized representative and employee of Defendant. Defendant's answer denies the making of the alleged oral warranty and alleges that a deficiency in the operation of the combine was caused or contributed to by a Ro-Master attachment for which defendant was in nowise responsible, having neither manufactured nor sold same; that there was no privity of contract between plaintiff and defendant; that plaintiff purchased the equipment from the local dealer, agreeing in writing on the nature and extent of the sole warranty made with respect to the equipment manufactured by defendant. The usual motions for directed verdict and judgment non obstante veredicto were made and denied, and the case was submitted to the jury who found for plaintiff. Defendant now appeals, contending principally that the written warranty superseded the parol warranty if such in fact was made at the time of the sale and purchase.
The equipment in question was purchased from Molair Farm Equipment, defendant's dealer in Barnwell, South Carolina; and it is described in the purchase order as 'SP 100 All Crop Harvestor; Reel, Cycle, and Retractable Finger Auger,' the total purchase price being $4,862. On the same page and below the listing appears the word 'Warranty' in large letters; then in usual type, the following appears:
And at the top of the page on the reverse side again appears the word 'Warranty' in large letters, under which appears the following:
'It is understood that the Allis-Chalmers machinery is sold by the Dealer with the following standard warranty of the Manufacturer, And No Other:
'Allis-Chalmers Manufacturing Company warrants that it will repair f. o. b. its factory, or furnish without charge f. o. b. its factory, a similar part to replace any material in its machinery which within one year (six months as to crawler-type tractors and motor patrols) after the date of sale by the Dealer is proved to the satisfaction of the Company to have been defective at the time it was sold, provided that all parts claimed defective shall be returned, properly identified, to the Company's branch house having jurisdiction over the Dealer's territory, charges prepaid.
'This warranty to repair applies only to new and unused machinery, which, after shipment from the factory of the Company, has not been altered, changed, repaired or treated in any manner whatsoever, and does not extend to trade accessories, attachments, tools, or implements not manufactured by the Company, though sold or operated with the Company's machinery.
'This Warranty to Repair Is the Only Warranty Either Express, Implied, or Statutory, upon Which Said Machinery is sold; the Company's liability in connection with this transaction is expressly limited to the repair or replacement of defective parts, all other damages and warranties, statutory or otherwise, being hereby expressly waived by the Purchaser.
'No representative of the Company has authority to change this warranty or this contract in any manner whatsoever, and no attempt to repair or promise to repair or improve the machinery covered by this contract by any representative of the Company shall waive any consideration of the contract or change or extend this warranty in any manner whatsoever.'
Plaintiff does not base his action upon the written warranty but upon the alleged oral warranty made by Mr. Lee, contending that the written warranty runs to the dealer and not to the purchaser. A reading of the warranty reveals that the machinery is sold by the dealer with such warranty by the manufacturer. It, briefly, provides for repair or replacement of defective parts within a year from date of such sale; further that 'no attempt to repair or promise to repair or improve the machinery covered by this contract by any representative of the Company shall waive any consideration of the contract or change or extend this warranty in any manner whatsoever.' This would indicate that the warranty is to run to the purchaser...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Regions Bank v. Schmauch
...before he signs it. Burwell v. South Carolina Nat'l Bank, 288 S.C. 34, 39, 340 S.E.2d 786, 789 (1986); Sanders v. Allis Chalmers Mfg. Co., 237 S.C. 133, 139-40, 115 S.E.2d 793, 796 (1960); Stanley Smith & Sons v. D.M.R. Inc., 307 S.C. 413, 417, 415 S.E.2d 428, 430 (Ct.App.1992). One who sig......
-
Rodarte v. Univ. of S.C.
...to Respondents." This is the very type of evidence the parol evidence rule excludes. See, e.g. , Sanders v. Allis Chalmers Mfg. Co. , 237 S.C. 133, 138, 115 S.E.2d 793, 795 (1960) ("Where parties reduce an agreement to writing, it is to be presumed that the sole agreement of the parties and......
-
Richen-Gemco, Inc. v. Heltra, Inc., RICHEN-GEMC
...(W)here in express terms it says it is the entire agreement, then it is presumed to be the sole agreement. Sanders v. Allis Chalmers Mfg. Co., 237 S.C. 133, 115 S.E.2d 793 (1960). Though the contract is silent on the intended effect of non-issuance of a patent or of a declaration of invalid......
-
Bradley v. Hullander
...a written agreement containing a warranty has been entered, the Buyer may not show an additional oral warranty. Sanders v. Allis Chalmers Co., 237 S.C. 133, 115 S.E.2d 793 (1960): We are of opinion that the warranty runs to the purchaser; that oral representations, if any, which may have be......