A warranty is not a contract which is separate and distinct from a contract of sale, but on the contrary, it is one of the terms of the contract of sale.1 Accordingly, a written contract of sale which purports upon its face to be complete, can not be added to by showing that the parties had entered into a prior or contemporaneous oral contract of warranty.2 This is especially clear where the written contract of sale provides that the only warranties are those contained in the sale,3 or where the contract provides that no agent has power to modify the warranty, and the attempt is made to show an oral warranty entered into through an agent.4 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.5 Under a written agreement to furnish certain electrical apparatus according to specifications of the latest type with first-class material and workmanship, an oral warranty that such apparatus will produce certain specified results can not be shown.6 A written guarantee as to certain specified matters still more clearly excludes evidence of an oral guaranty as to other matters.7 A provision that the vendor "guarantees above property only as to title," excludes an oral guarantee that the property is "in first-class condition and suitable for the purpose for which it was intended."8 Where there is an express written warranty against breakage, evidence of an oral warranty against defective working is inadmissible.9 So where a written order is given for a fireproof 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 fireproof.10 If a contract for the sale of an automobile is in writing and appears on its face to be complete, evidence of an oral warranty is inadmissible.11 On the other hand, it has been said that a contract for the sale of trees may be explained by showing the original orders given therefor in order to show that the vendor warranted that such trees were healthy,12 or that they were of a certain specified kind.13

30 New Orleans Northeastern Ry. Co. v. Lott, 118 Miss. 57, 7ft So. 1.

1 United States. Marmet Coal Co. v. People's Coal Co., 226 Fed. 646, 141 C. C. A. 402; Hamilton Iron & Steel Co. v. Groveland Mining Co., 233 Fed. 388, 147 C. C. A. 324.

Arkansas. Western Cabinet & Fixture Mfg. Co. v. Davis, 121 Ark. 370, 181 S. W. 273.

Georgia. Bond v. Perrin, 145 Ga. 200, 88 S. E. 954.

Massachusetts. Glackin v. Bennett, 226 Mass. 316, 115 N. E. 490.

Minnesota. McNaughton v. Wahl, 99 Minn. 92, 116 Am. St. Rep. 389, 108 N. W. 467.

2 United States. Seitz v. Machine Co., 141 U. S. 510, 35 L. ed. 837; Wilson v. Cattle Ranch Co., 73 Fed. 994, 20 C. C. A. 244; Marmet Coal Co. v. People's Coal Co., 226 Fed. 646, 141 C. C. A. 402; Hamilton Iron & Steel Co. v Groveland Mining Co., 233 Fed. 388, 147 C. C. A. 324.

Arkansas. Western Cabinet & Fixture Mfg. Co. v. Davis, 121 Ark. 370, 181 S. W. 273.

Georgia. Bond v. Perrin, 145 Ga. 200, 88 S. E. 954.

Indiana. McCormick Harvesting Machine Co. v. Yoeman, 26 Ind. App. 415, 59 N. E. 1069.

Kansas. Diebold, etc., Lock Co. v. Huston, 55 Kan. 104, 28 L. R. A. 53, 39 Pac. 1035; Ehrsam v. Brown, 64 Kan. 466, 67 Pac. 867.

Massachusetts. Glackin v. Bennett, 226 Mass. 316, 115 N. E. 490.

Michigan. Hallwood Cash Register Co. v. Millard, 127 Mich. 316, 86 N. W. 833; D. M. Osborne & Co. v. Wigent, 127 Mich. 624, 86 N. W. 1022; Bayer v. Winton Motor Co., 194 Mich. 222, 160 N. W. 642.

Minnesota. Thompson v. Libby, 34 Minn. 374, 26 N. W. 1: McNaughton v. Wahl, 99 Minn. 92, 116 Am. St. Rep. 389, 108 N. W. 467.

North Carolina. A. B. Farquhar Co. v. Hardy Hardware Co., 174 N. Car. 369, 93 S. E. 922.

Tennessee. Somerville v. Gullett Gin Co., 137 Tenn. 509, 194 S. W. 576.

Vermont. Hebard v. Cutler, 91 Vt. 218, 99 Atl. 879.

Washington. Grubb v. House, 93 Wash. 200, 160 Pac. 421; Ringmaster v. Hall, 98 Wash. 134, 167 Pac. 136.

Wisconsin. 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.

3 Sing-master v. Hall, 98 Wash. 134, 167 Pac. 136.

4 A. B. Farquhar Co. v. Hardy Hardware Co., 174 N. Car. 360. 93 S. E. 922.

5 Nichols v. Crandall, 77 Mich. 401, 6 L. R. A. 412, 43 N. W. 875.

6 Electric Storage Battery Co. v. Waterloo, C, F. & N. R. Co., 138 la. 369, 19 L. R. A. (N.S.) 1183, 116 N. W. 144.

7 Holt & Duggan Co. v. Clary, 146 Ga. 46, 90 S. E. 381.

8 Holt & Duggan Co. v. Clary, 146 Ga. 46, 90 S. E. 381.

9 Dowagiac Mfg. Co. v. Corbit, 127 Mich. 473, 86 N. W. 954 [rehearing denied, 87 N. W. 886].

10Diebold Safe and Lock Co. v. Huston, 55 Kan. 104, 28 L. R. A. 53, 39 Pac. 1035.

11 Glackin v. Bennett, 226 Mass. 316, 115 N. E. 490; Bayer v. Winton Motor Co., 194 Mich. 222, 160 N. W. 642.

12Grisinger v. Hubbard, 21 Ida. 469, Ann. Cas. 1913E. 87, 122 Pac. 853. (This may possibly be justified on the theory of an implied warranty.)

13 Graham v. Brown Bros. Co., 30 Ida. 651, 168 Pac. 9.

The parties can not introduce evidence of facts from which a warranty could be implied where the contract is in writing. Thus they can not show that the sale was by sample,14 or that an apparatus was sold for a specific purpose.15 The rule forbidding the addition of oral warranties to complete written contracts, applies to other contracts besides 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.16 So in an assignment of a mortgage, an oral guaranty that the mortgage was a valid lien on the property is unenforceable.17 So in a written contract for the sale of land, an oral warranty as to the location of an electric railway can not be enforced.18 Where a written lease has been given, evidence of an oral warranty as to the condition of the property leased can not be enforced.19 So an oral warranty that a boiler and engine situated on leased property is in good condition, is unenforceable where a written lease has been given.20 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.21

If the written contract shows upon its face that it is incomplete as to the warranty, extrinsic evidence is admissible as far as the parol evidence rule is concerned, to show the oral warranty upon which the parties had agreed.22 If a written contract for the installation of a heating system shows that the parties intended to guarantee some specified temperature but the space for the statement of the exact temperature is not filled in, extrinsic evidence is admissible to show the temperature upon which the parties had actually agreed.23 The fact that a lien is reserved does not authorize the addition of an oral warranty to a written contract of sale.24 The rule that a written contract can not be supplemented by an oral warranty applies only to cases in which the written contract is the repository of the intention of the parties. If it can be shown that the written contract is entered into by a mistake,25 such as a mistake as to the identity of the parties,26 extrinsic evidence of an oral warranty may be shown.

14 Wiener v. Whipple, 53 Wis. 298, 40 Am. Rep. 775, 10 N. W. 433.

15McCray, etc., Co. v. Woods, 99 Mich. 269. 41 Am. St. Rep. 599, 58 N. W. 320.

16 Montgomery v. Ins. Co., 97 Fed. 913, 38 C. C. A. 553.

17Nally v. Long, 71 Md. 585, 17 Am. St. Rep. 547, 18 Atl. 811.

18 Baker v. Flick, 200 Pa. St. 13, 49 Atl. 349.

19 Stevens v. Pierce, 151 Mass. 207, 23 N. E. 1006; McLean v. Nicol, 43 Minn. 169, 45 N. W. 15; York v. Steward, 21 Mont. 515, 43 L. R. A. 125, 55

Pac. 29; Naumberg v. Young, 44 N. J. L. 331, 43 Am. Rep. 380.

20 Naumberg v. Young, 44 N. J. L. 331, 43 Am. Rep. 380 [citing, Dutton v. Gerrish, 63 Mass. (9 Cush.) 89].

21 Tufts v. Verkuyl, 124 Mich. 242, 82 N. W. 891.

22 Schneider v. Fairmon, 128 Ark. 425, 194 S. W. 251; Sparks v. Lord, 198 Mich. 415, 164 N. W. 490; Standard Paint Co. v. Vietor, 120 Va. 595, 91 S. E. 752.

23 Sparks v. Lord, 198 Mich. 415, 164 N. W. 490.

A written contract which is entered into under mistake as to an essential element does not merge a prior oral warranty.27 If A buys an automobile from B, believing that B is the agent for the manufacturer, X, when in fact B is the owner thereof, a written contract by which it is agreed that the manufacturer would replace defective parts, may be modified by showing that B had warranted such automobile orally.28

On the other hand, a warranty which is contained in a contract of sale, whether by express terms or by implication, can not be modified by prior oral agreement.29