Story Case

Brown and Son, tool-handle manufacturers, being out of material, telegraphed to Jenkins Dibble, a farmer in Ohio, as follows: "Will pay eight dollars a cord for ash sapplings cut on your farm." A letter was received in answer from a certain Mr. Arthur Leiber, explaining that Mr. Dibble had recently died, and that he, Leiber, was his executor. Mr. Leiber wrote that he could not guarantee the state of preservation of this lumber, since it had been cut some time. But Brown and Son were in haste, and closed the transaction at once. Later, it developed that much of the wood was cracked and split, due to improper curing. This resulted in more waste than the tool-handle firm contemplated. Mr. Leiber answered a request to refund as follows: "I warned your company that I was unaware of the condition of this wood." Will this be a sufficient answer before a court of justice in the suit between the Brown and Son Company and Mr. Leiber?

Ruling Court Case. Kellogg Vs. Barnard, Volume 10 Wallace, United States Reports, Page 383

Barnard, a commission merchant, residing in Boston, Massachusetts, placed a quantity of foreign wool in the hands of wool brokers to sell. He instructed the brokers not to sell unless the purchaser himself came to Boston and examined the wool. An offer was made by Kellogg, a dealer of wool, who resided in Hartford. The wool broker accepted the offer, provided Kellogg would come and examine the wool. Kellogg went to Boston, and after examining certain of the bales as fully as he desired, and being offered an opportunity to examine all the remaining bales, and have them opened for his inspection, which he declined, he purchased the wool. The wool proved to be cleverly packed - rotten and damaged wool and tags being concealed by an outer covering of fleeces in their ordinary state. Barnard knew nothing of this. Kellogg brought this action to recover damages.

He contended that there was an implied warranty that the goods were merchantable, and that, therefore, he was under no obligation to pay for them.

Mr. Justice Davis said: "No principle of the Common Law has been better established or more often affirmed, both in this country and in England, than that in sales of personal property, in the absence of express warranty, where the buyer has an opportunity to inspect the commodity, and the seller is guilty of no fraud, and is neither the manufacturer nor grower of the article he sells, the maxim of caveat emptor applies. Such a rule, requiring the purchaser to take care of his own interests, has been found best adapted to the wants of trade in the business transactions of life. And there is no hardship in it, because if the purchaser distrusts his judgment he can require of the seller a warranty that the quality or condition of the goods he desires to buy corresponds with the sample exhibited. If he is satisfied without a warranty, and can inspect and declines to do it, he takes upon himself the risk that the article is merchantable, and he cannot relieve himself and charge the seller, on the ground that the examination will occupy time, and is attended with labor and inconvenience." Judgment was given for Barnard.

Ruling Law. Story Case Answer

When personal property is sold and no express claims are made as to its quality, generally the law will not create any warranty by implication. In such a case, the rule of Caveat Emptor or "let the buyer beware," is said to apply; that is, if the buyer does not ask for a warranty as to quality, he buys at his peril. He must either satisfy himself as to the quality of the thing, or demand a warranty, else the law will afford no relief against a bad bargain.

In the Story Case, the firm of Brown & Son fails in its effort to recover a part of the purchase price. The law does not protect a man against his own lack of circumspection.