Waldron Co. v. Beattie Mfg. Co.
| Decision Date | 28 December 1920 |
| Docket Number | 15935. |
| Citation | 113 Wash. 533,194 P. 557 |
| Parties | WALDRON CO. v. BEATTIE MFG. CO. |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Department 2.
Appeal from Superior Court, King County; J. T. Ronald, Judge.
Action by the Waldron Company against the Beattie Manufacturing Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.
Peters & Powell, Marion Edwards, Donworth, Todd & Higgins, and Hyman Zettler, all of Seattle, for appellant.
J Speed Smith, Hy Elliott, Jr., and Kerr & McCord, all of Seattle, for respondent.
This action was brought to recover damages for the breach of an alleged contract for the purchase of rugs. The defense was a denial of the contract and an affirmative defense, in substance, that a general custom of the trade is that a salesman employed by a manufacturer to take orders from retailers takes such orders subject to acceptance or rejection by the manufacturer, and has no authority himself to accept or reject an order, and that the plaintiff was notified, at and prior to the time of the making of the memorandum, that the order was subject to acceptance or rejection by defendant, and that the defendant notified the plaintiff, shortly after the making of the order, that the same was not accepted; that the goods described in the memorandum are imperfect goods, and that it is the custom of the trade for manufacturers to sell such goods only to purchasers who have purchased perfect goods; that at the time the order was given plaintiff stated that he desired to purchase perfect goods, and was thereby entitled to some imperfect goods, but that plaintiff postponed temporarily giving such an order, and afterwards refused to give such order; and that by reason thereof he was not entitled to purchase any of the imperfect goods. Upon these issues the case was tried to the court and a jury, and resulted in a verdict in favor of the plaintiff for $2,400. The defendant has appealed from that judgment and urges that the court erred in giving two instructions.
The facts as testified to by the respondent, which we must assume the jury found to be true, are in substance as follows: The respondent is a retail dealer in rugs in the city of Seattle. The appellant is a manufactuer of rugs engaged in selling the same in wholesale quantities in New York City. In October of 1915 Mr. Waldron, who represented the respondent company, went to New York for the purpose of buying rugs. On the 22d of that month he went to the appellant's salesroom, where he met Mr. Beattie, the president of the appellant company. Mr. Waldron had previously purchased goods from the appellant. He thereupon told Mr. Beattie that he wished to order a good-sized bill of 'sectionds.' These 'seconds' are imperfect rugs, which are sold at from 10 to 15 per cent. below the wholesale price of perfect rugs. Mr. Beattie referred to his books, and said to Mr. Waldron that he was entitled to seconds, and after examining some rugs and securing prices Mr. Waldron told Mr. Beattie that he would make up a list of rugs that he desired, and would return later. On the 26th of the same month Mr. Waldron returned to the office with a list of rugs which he had made up. Mr. Beattie was busy at the time and referred him to Mr. Hilgers, who was the appellant's salesman for the Pacific Coast, saying to Mr Waldron that Mr. Hilgers would take care of him. Mr. Hilgers thereupon wrote out an order for a large number of seconds, as Mr. Waldron dictated the order. After the order was completed and signed, and copy was given to Mr. Waldron, one copy was retained by Mr. Hilgers, and the third was turned over to Mr. Beattie. Mr. Waldron testified that there was no agreement that he should buy perfect rugs as a condition that he might have the order for seconds filled; that Mr. Beattie, after examining his books, stated to him that he was entitled to seconds, and that thereupon he gave the order to Mr. Hilgers, who accepted it. Mr. Waldron thereupon left the office and returned to Seattle. Afterwards he wrote letters requesting that the order for the goods be filed and shipped to him at Seattle. Excuses were made by appellant to the effect that they did not have the goods in stock. Afterwards Mr. Waldron was informed by Mr. Beattie that he would not fill the order, and this action was brought.
After the jury had heard the evidence and retired to consider their verdict, and after they had been out all night, they returned in the morning and asked the court the following question:
'Jury Foreman: If your honor please, I what the jury wished to ask you is whether or not the salesman in the employ of a corporation has the right to take an order for that corporation, and in turn unqualifiedly bind that corporation as to his acts.'
The court thereupon gave, among others, the following instruction:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Thomas W. Simmons & Co. v. Northwestern Junk Co.
...steel was purchased to be delivered f. o. b. cars at Seattle, or f. o. b. defendant's yard, at Seattle, or f. o. b. Argo Yards. In Waldron v. Beattie, supra, we held that measure of damages for that case was the difference between the contract price and the price plaintiff could have sold t......
- Schloss v. Stringer