Tharp v. Allis-Chalmers Mfg. Co.
Decision Date | 16 July 1938 |
Docket Number | No. 4344.,4344. |
Citation | 42 N.M. 443,81 P.2d 703 |
Parties | THARPv.ALLIS-CHALMERS MFG. CO. |
Court | New Mexico Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from District Court, Curry County; Harry L. Patton, Judge.
Action by N. L. Tharp against Allis-Chalmers Manufacturing Company to recover for breach of an alleged implied warranty of certain machinery manufactured by defendant. Judgment for plaintiff for $2,415.85, and defendant appeals.
Reversed and remanded with instructions to dismiss.
Where contract of sale of farm machinery stated that the express warranty to repair was the only warranty either express, implied, or statutory, warranty of fitness for the purpose could not be implied, since parties can contract against implied warranties.
Hervey, Dow, Hill & Hinkle and Ross L. Malone, Jr., all of Roswell, for appellant.
Otto Smith and Mayes & Rowley, all of Clovis, for appellee.
This is an appeal from a judgment entered on an implied warranty. Twelve farmers bought listers manufactured by appellant for cash at $190 per machine prior to Mch. 4, 1935. The first offer to return the listers was made during the trial Feb. 10, 1937. They spent $135.85 for repairs and labor and assigned their claims to plaintiff in whose favor judgment was entered for $2,415.85 against appellant. Appellant introduced no testimony, but entered into stipulations under which the contract between appellant and the local dealer in farm machinery and the written orders for the listers were admitted in evidence. The court found that appellant sold and delivered to the farmers a certain type of lister; that the listers were worthless; that the local seller of the machinery, referred to in the contract as “dealer”, was the agent of defendant, appellant, at the time of the sale of the machines, and that each of the purchasers of the listers signed an order form which contained the following:
“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 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 apply to trade accessories, attachments, tools, or implements not manufactured by the Company, though sold or operated with the machinery.
“This warranty to repair is the only warranty either express, implied or statutory, upon which the undersigned purchases said machinery; 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 expressly waived by the undersigned.
“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.”
The court's conclusions of law contain the following:
***”
The assignments of error follow:
[1] Assuming without deciding that the so called dealer was the agent of appellant the question for decision is whether or not the contract against implied warranties, quoted above, is valid.
The trial court referred to the J. B. Colt Cases, supra. We held in J. B. Colt Co. v. Gavin, supra, that (262 P. page 530):
The question for decision here is whether or not one can contract against implied warranties and not whether express warranties exclude implied warranties. The language of the contract signed by the purchasers is clear, and the following clause is capitalized: “This warranty to repair is the only warranty either express, implied or statutory, upon which the undersigned purchases said machinery;”. The case is similar to that of Minneapolis Threshing Mach. Co. v. Hocking, 54 N. D. 559, 209 N.W. 996, where that court said (page 999):
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Fairbanks, Morse & Co. v. CONSOLIDATED F. CO.
...agreement, limit their rights, duties and obligations arising thereunder, by the terms of the contract. See Tharp v. Allis-Chalmers Mfg. Co., 42 N.M. 443, 81 P.2d 703, 117 A.L. R. 1344, at page 1350 and annotation "Validity of provision of contract of sale of personal property negativing im......
-
Rasmus v. AO Smith Corporation, Civ. No. 962.
...that did not reap, or a furnace that heated only his own temper, without recourse on the seller. See e. g., Tharp v. Allis-Chalmers, 1938, 42 N.M. 443, 81 P.2d 703, 117 A.L.R. 1344. On the other hand, to impose upon the seller liabilities and responsibilities that he disclaimed in a contrac......
-
Payne v. Valley Motor Sales, Inc.
...by 133 A.L.R. 1360, 1364; Minneapolis Threshing Mach. Co. v. Hocking, 54 N.D. 559, 209 N.W. 996; Tharp v. Allis-Chalmers Mfg. Co., 42 N.M. 443, 81 P.2d 703, 117 A.L.R. 1344; Bekkevold v. Potts, 173 Minn. 87, 216 N.W. 790, 59 A.L.R. 1164, (which states that all implied warranties may be easi......
-
Vitro Corp. of America v. Texas Vitrified Supply Co.
...implied warranty of merchantability in Phares v. Sandia Lumber Company, 62 N.M. 90, 305 P.2d 367; and, in Tharp v. Allis-Chalmers Mfg. Co., 42 N.M. 443, 81 P.2d 703, 117 A.L.R. 1344, we discussed at length with citation of numerous authorities the character, nature and extent of this implie......