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 contract for the sale of personalty is broken by failure on the part of the seller to deliver such goods in substantial compliance with the terms of the contract.1 Material delay in the time of delivering the goods amounts to a breach.2
A promise by the seller to deliver goods f. o. b. cars requires the seller to obtain the cars and to load the goods thereon.3 Whether the time in which the goods are shipped by the seller is reasonable or not, depends, however, upon the difficulty of getting cars because of a general shortage thereof.4 Failure on the part of the seller to declare the full value of the goods to the carrier, which results in a loss to the buyer by reason of the destruction of such goods, is a breach of the seller's duty.5
16 McMurray v. Spicer, L. R. 5 Eq. 527; Fuller v. Hovey, 84 Mass. (2 AH.) 324, 70 Am. Dec. 782; Kirby v. Harrison, 2 O. S. 326, 59 Am. Dec. 677.
17 World's Fair Mining Co. v. Powers, 224 U. S. 173, 50 L. ed. 717.
1 Alabama. Lowy v. Rosenngrant, 190 Ala. 337, 71 So. 439.
Arkansas. Isbell-Brown Co. v. Stevens Grocer Co., 118 Ark. 17, 175 S. W. 1158.
Kansas. Hurst v. Altamont Mfg. Co., 73 Kan. 422, 6 L. R. A. (N.S.) 92S, 85 Pac. 551.
New Mexico. Culp v. Sandoval, 22 N. M. 71, L. R. A. 1917A, 1157, 159 Pac. 950.
North Dakota. Sunshine Cloak & Suit Co. v. Roquette, 30 N D. 143, L R. A. 1910E, 932, 152 N. W. 359.
Pennsylvania. White v. Wolf, 185 Pa St. 369, 39 Atl. 1011.
Washington. R. J. Menz Lumber Co. v. McNeeley, 58 Wash. 223, 28 L. R. A. (N.S.) 1007, 108 Pac 021.
A contract to ship goods within a certain time is broken, so as to discharge the buyer, by shipping the goods too late. Reuter v. Sala, 4 C. P. D. 239.
It is also broken by shipping them too early. Bowes v. Shand, 2 App. Cas 455 [reversing, 2 Q. B. D. 112, which reversed 1 Q. B D. 4701.
2 Sunshine Cloak & Suit Co. v. Roquette, 30 N. D. 143, L. R. A. 1916E, 932, 152 N. W. 359.
3 Kansas. Hurst v. Altamont Mfg. Co, 73 Kan. 422, 6 L. R. A. (N.S.) 928, 85 Pac. 551.
New Mexico. Culp v. Sandoval, 22 N. M. 71, L. R. A. 1917A, 1157, 159
Washington. R. J. Menz Lumber Co. v. McNeeley, 58 Wash. 223, 28 L. R. A. (N.S.) 1007, 108 Pac. 621.
4 R. J. Menz Lumber Co. v. McNeeley, 58 Wash 223, 28 L. R. A. (N.S.) 1007, 108 Pae. 621.
A contract for the sale of goods is broken on the part of the seller by a failure of title to the goods or to a substantial part thereof.6 Such failure, however, must exist at the time of the, performance, and not at the time the contract is made.7 A contract to sell and deliver goods is not broken when made by the fact that the seller does not have title thereto at the time.8
A contract for the sale of goods is broken on the part of the seller by a material deficiency in quantity,9 or by a substantial defect in quality,10 if such defects are not waived by the purchaser. An executory contract for the sale of goods is broken by a substantial breach of a warranty thereof.11 However, an express provision to the effect that there is no warranty prevents a failure to deliver goods of the quality designated from being a breach.12 A contract to replace parts which break under ordinary service because of defective material or workmanship, is broken by refusal to replace parts which are not in themselves defective but which break because of the defective character of other parts of the same machine or appliance.13
5 Miller v. Harvey, 221 N. Y. 54, L. R. A. 1917F, 559, 110 N. E. 781.
6 Shores Lumber Co. v. Claney, 102 Wis. 235, 78 N. W. 451.
7 Page v. Ford, 05 Or. 450, 45 I„ R. A. (N.S.) 247, 1.11 Pac. 1013.
8 Page v. Ford, 65 Or. 450, 47, L. R A. (N.S.) 247, 13l Pac. 1013.
9 Kuhlman v. Wood, 81 la. 128, 46 N. W. 738.
10 United States. Delaware, Lackawanna & Western Ry. v. United States, 231 U. S. 303, 58 L. cd. 200 (obiter).
Iowa. Roper v. Wells 182 la. 237, 165 N. W. 385.
Kansas. Fairbanks v. Walker, 70 Kan. 903, 17 L. R. A. (N.S.) 558, 02 Pac. 1129.
Kentucky. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Travelers' Ins. Machine Co., 107 Ky. 382, 180 S. W. 815.
Wisconsin. Fox v. Wilkinson, 133 Wis. 337, 14 L. R. A. (N.S.) 1107, 113
N. W. 669; Stein v. Jasculca, 105 Wis. 317, 162 N. W. 182.
11 United States. Pope v. Allis, 115 U. S. 363, 29 L. ed. 393.
Iowa. Fulton Bank v. Mathers, 183 la. 226, 166 N. W. 1050.
Kentucky. Clover Machine Works v. Cooke-Jellico Coal Co., 173 Ky. 675, 191 S. W. 510.
Nebraska. Toledo Computing Scale Co. v, Fredericksen, 95 Neb. 089, 140 N. W. 957.
Washington. Fairbanks Steam Shovel Co. v. Holt, 79 Wash. 301, L. R. A. 1915B, 477, 140 Pac. 394; Sevier v. Hopkins, 101 Wash. 404, 172 Pac. 550.
12 Leonard Seed Co. v. Crary Canning Co., 147 Wis. 100, 37 L. R. A. (N.S.) 79, 132 N. W. 902.
13 American Locomotive Co. v. National Wholesale Grocery Co., 220 Mass. 314, L. R. A. 1917D, 1125,115 N. E. 404.
A contract for the sale of goods is broken by the failure of the buyer to pay therefor in accordance with the terms of the contract14 Failure to pay for goods bought under an entire contract before the entire quantity has been delivered is not breach, how-ever, in the absence of an express provision for payment in instalments.15 The refusal of the buyer to accept the goods when they are tendered, amounts to a breach.16 The omission of the seller to furnish receptacles for the goods, in accordance with the terms of the contract, is a breach thereof.17