This section is from the book "The Law Of Contracts", by William Herbert Page. Also available from Amazon: Commercial Contracts: A Practical Guide to Deals, Contracts, Agreements and Promises.
A complete written contract cannot be added to by showing a prior or contemporaneous oral warranty.1 Thus, where there was an express warranty that an engine is made of good material, an oral warranty that it had power to run a certain separator could not be enforced.2 So where there is an express written warranty against breakage, evidence of an oral warranty against defective working is inadmissible.3 So where a written order is given for a fire-proof safe, evidence of a contemporaneous oral warranty is inadmissible, and the language of the order itself does not imply a warranty that the safe is fire proof.4 The parties cannot introduce evidence of facts from which a warranty could be implied, where the contract is in writing. Thus they cannot show that the sale was by sample,5 or that an apparatus was sold for a specific purpose.6 The rule forbidding the addition of oral warranties to complete written contracts, applies to other contracts beside those of sale. Thus in a contract for employing a life insurance agent, and paying him commissions on renewals, an oral guaranty as to the amount of renewals is unenforceable.7 So in an assignment of a mortgage, an oral guaranty that the mortgage was a valid lien on the property is unenforceable.8 So in a written contract for the sale of land, an oral warranty as to the location of an electric railway cannot be enforced.9 So where a written lease has been given, evidence of an oral warranty as to the condition of the property leased, cannot be enforced.10 So an oral warranty that a boiler and engine situated on leased property is in good condition, is unenforceable where a written lease ha8 been given.11 The admission of evidence of an express oral warranty, which is the same as that which would be implied without such evidence, is not, however, prejudicial error.12
10Robieson v. Royce, 63 Kan. 886; 66 Pac. 646. (No opinion in official report.)
11 Mead v. Dunlevie, 174 N. Y. 108; 66 N. E. 658.
1Seitz v. Machine Co., 141 U. S. 510; Wilson v. Cattle-Rranch Co., 73 Fed. 994; 20 C. C. A. 244; Mc-Cormick Harvesting Machine Co. v. Yoeman, 26 Ind. App. 415; 59 N. E. 1069; Ehrsam v. Brown, 64 Kan. 466; 67 Pac. 867; Diebold, etc., Lock Co. v. Huston, 55 Kan. 104; 28 L. R. A. 53; 39 Pac. 1035; D. M. Osborne & Co. v. Wigent, 127 Mich. 624; 86 N. W. 1022; Hallwood Cash Register Co. v. Millard, 127 Mich. 316; 86 N. W. 833; Thompson v. Libby, 34 Minn. 374; 26 N. W. 1;
Milwaukee Boiler Co. v. Duncan, 87 Wis. 120; 41 Am. St. Rep. 33; 58 N. W. 232. Contra, Puget Sound, etc., Works v. Clemmons, 32 Wash. 36; 72 Pac. 465.
2 Nichols v. Crandall, 77 Mich. 401; 6 L. R. A. 412; 43 N. W. 875.
3 Dowagiac Mfg. Co. v. Corbit, 127 Mich. 473; 86 N. W. 954; rehearing denied 87 N. W. 886.
4 Diebold Safe and Lock Co. v. Huston, 55 Kan. 104; 28 L. R. A. 53; 39 Pac. 1035.
5 Wiener v. Whipple, 53 Wis. 298; 40 Am. Rep. 775; 10 N. W. 433.
6McCray, etc., Co. v. Woods, 99 Mich. 269; 41 Am. St. Rep. 599; 58 N. W. 320.