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.
The words used by the parties in their written contract are of course a part thereof. Each and every one of them must be considered in arriving at the intention of the parties. It does not necessarily follow that every word written on the paper when the contract is executed is a part thereof. Thus where a letter contained a proposition to pay for the manufacture and delivery of goods, and it was accepted by the party to whom it was sent by a letter, the words " All sales subject to strikes and accidents," printed as part of the letter-head of the reply, do not form any part of the contract.1 This principle is still clearer where the words in question are on some paper other than that on which the contract is written. So if a contract of sale is in writing, the printed bill-head of the invoice of goods is no part thereof.2 The same principle applies where the contract is not in writing. Thus A, a manufacturer, had placed a printed warranty on wheels manufactured and sold by him. B bought a wheel and resold it without removing the placard. It was held that B did not thereby adopt A's warranty.3 These are really special examples of the application of the general doctrines of offer and acceptance.
4 Heath v. Hall, 4 Taunt. 326; Tibbits v. George, 5 Ad. & El. 107; Chamberlin v. Gilman, 10 Colo. 94; Barthol v. Blakin, 34 la. 452; Rob-bins v. Klein, 60 O. S. 199: 54 N. E. 94; Clark v. Gillespie, 70 Tex. 513; 8 S. W. 121; Noyes v. Brown, 33 Vt. 431; Chapman v. Plummer, 36 Wis. 262.
5 In re Huggin's Estate, 204 Pa. St. 167; 53 Atl. 746.
6Quinn v. Quinn, 5 S. D. 328; 49 Am. St. Rep. 875; 58 N. W. 808; Taylor v. Deseve, 81 Tex. 246; 16 S. W. 1008.
7 Flynn v. Baisley. 35 Or. 268: 76
Am. St. Rep. 495; 45 L. R. A. 645; 57 Pac. 908.
8 See Sec. 54.
9 Drummond v. Crane, 159 Mass. 577; 38 Am. St. Rep. 460; 23 L. R. A. 707; 35 N. E. 90; Lowrey v. Danforth, 95 Mo. App. 441; 69 S. W. 39; Sanders v. Fruit Co., 144 N. Y. 209; 43 Am. St. Rep. 757; 29 L. R. A. 431; 39 N. E. 75.
10Ridgway v. Wharton. 6 H. L. Cas. 238, 268; Lake Erie, etc., Co. v. Ry., 86 Fed. 840: Lyman v. Robinson, 14 All. (Mass.) 242; Mississippi, etc., Steamship Co. v. Swift, 86 Me. 248; 41 Am. St. Rep. 545; 29 Atl. 1063.