If the promisee, with the knowledge of the breach, voluntarily retains property delivered to him in performance of the contract, which property it is possible for him to return to the promisor, such retention will amount to a waiver of the breach so as to preclude him from using such breach as a discharge.1 Under a contract for the sale of chattels, acceptance of chattels which do not conform to the terms of the contract, with full knowledge of such facts, or with full opportunity to learn them, is a waiver of such breach, at least in the absence of a warranty, and the vendee can not subsequently avoid the contract by reason thereof.2 The act of the buyer in accepting goods which are denvered under a contract of sale, knowing that there is a deficiency in quantity, operates as a waiver of such breach for the purpose of treating the contract as discharged,3 although it is not a waiver of his right to recover damages for such deficiency.4 One who has accepted a delivery of less than the quantity to which he is entitled, without demand for the delivery of the rest of such quantity, can not treat the contract as discharged without such demand.5 If a water company has agreed to furnish "wholesome, clear, potable water" its breach in furnishing water of inferior quality is waived by the action of the city in accepting and making use of the water which is actually furnished.6 If goods which have been sold are to be delivered in instalments, and the seller tenders a greater quantity for one instalment than the buyer has agreed to accept, the conduct of the buyer in accepting it waives such breach.7 Under a contract of sale which provides for certain specified tests, the act of the buyer in accepting and using the property without such test is a waiver of such test and of such defects as would have been discovered if such test had been made.8 Accepting seats of a different design,9 beds of a different width,10 or soda ash of a lower per cent of alkali11 from that specified in the contract, waives the right to treat such breach as a discharge.

11Creston Waterworks Co. v. Cres-ton, 101 la. 687, 70 N. W. 739; Win-field Water Co. v. Winfield, 61 Kan. 104, 33 Pac. 714; Wiley v. Athol, 160 Mass. 426, 6L.R.A. 342, 23 N. E. 311; Lamar Water & Electric Light Co. v. Lamar, 140 Mo. 145, 39 S. W. 768.

12 Burke v. Coyne, 188 Mass. 401, 74 N. E. 942 (obiter).

13 Peck-WilliamRon Heating & Ventilating Co. v. McKnight, 140 Tenn. 663, 206 S. W. 419.

14 Philadelphia v. Hays, 93 Pa. St. 72.

15 Flick v. Mining Co., 16 Colo. App. 485, 66 Pac. 463; Swank v. Barnum, 63 Minn. 447, 65 N. W. 722.

16 Aarnes v. Windham, 137 Ala. 513, 34 So. 816; Vanderhoof v Shell, 42 Or. 578, 72 Pac. 126.

17Evans v. Howell, 211 111. 85, 71 N. E. 854.

18 Wunsch v Boldt, 4 Tex. App. Civ. 76, 15 S. W. 193.

Contra, if the contractor has agreed to furnish an "inexhaustible" supply. Vincent v. Morrison, 58 Mo. App. 497.

19 Dunklee v. Hooper, 69 Vt 66, 37 Atl 225.

1 McCourt t. Johns, 33 Or. 661, 63 Pac. 601.

2 McAlpine v. Reicheneker, 66 Kan. 100, 42 Pac. 339.

3 Coleman v. Bank, 115 Ala. 307, 22 So. 84.

4 Corbett v. Schulte, 119 Mich. 249, 77 N. W. 947.

5 Clark v. Neumann, 56 Neb. 374, 76 N. W. 892.

6 Matthews v. Kerfoot, 167 III 313, 47 N E 859; Boyum v. Johnson, 8 N. D. 306, 79 N. W. 149.

1 United States. German Savings Institution v. Refrigerating Co., 70 Fed. 146, 17 C. C. A. 34.

Alabama. Worthington v. Gwin, 119 Ala. 44, 43 L. R. A. 382 [sub nomine, Wortbington v. Givin, 24 So. 739]; Eastern Granite Roofing Co. v. Chapman, 140 Ala. 440, 103 Am. St. Rep. 58, 37 So. 199.

California. Vallens v. Tillmann, 103 Cal. 187, 37 Pac. 213.

Iowa. Wells v. Hocking Valley Coal Co., 137 la. 526, 114 N. W. 1076; Wetter v. Otto, 179 la. 873, 162 N. W. 12.

Kentucky. Glover Machine Works v. Cooke-Jellico Coal Co., 173 Ky. 675, 191 S. W. 516; International Harvester Co. v. Brown, 182 Ky. 435, 206 S. W. 622.

Mississippi. J. I. Case Threshing Machine Co. v. McCoy, 111 Miss. 715, 72 So. 138; Lumbermen's Supply Co. v. Poplarville Sawmill Co., 117 Miss. 274, 78 So. 157.

Montana. Best Mfg. Co. v. Hutton, 49 Mont. 78, 141 Pac. 653; St. Paul Machinery Mfg. Co. v. Bruce, 54 Mont. 549, 172 Pac. 330 (obiter).

Washington. Hurley-Mason Co. v. Stebbins, 79 Wash. 366, L. R. A. 1915B, 1131, 140 Pac. 381.

Wisconsin. J. B. Bradford Piano Co. v. Baal, 166 Wis. 134, 164 N. W. 822.

See also, though not a question of breach, School Sisters of Notre Dame v. Kusnitt, 125 Md. 323, L. R. A. 1916D, 792, 93 Atl. 928.

2 Alabama. Worthington v. Gwin, 119 Ala. 44, 43 L. R. A. 382 [sub-nomine, Worthington v. Givin, 24 So. 739] (a case in which the breach was so trifling as not, in all probability, to prevent substantial performance); Eastern Granite Roofing Co. v. Chapman, 140 Ala. 440, 103 Am. St. Rep. 58, 37 So. 199; Vinegar Bend Lumber Co. v. Soule Steam Feed Works, 182 Ala. 146, 62 So. 279.

California. Vallens v. Tillmann, 108 Cal. 187, 37 Pac. 213; Browning v. McNear, 145 Cal. 272, 78 Pac 722.

Indiana. O'Brien v. Higley, 162 Ind. 316, 70 N. E. 242.

Iowa. Hirshhorn v. Stewart, 49 la. 418; Prey-Sheckler Co. v. Brick Co., 104 la. 494, 73 N. W. 1051; Wetter v. Otto, 179 la. 873,162 N. W. 12.

Kentucky. Glover Machine Works v. Cooke-Jellico Coal Co., 173 Ky. 675, 191 S. W. 516.

Massachusetts. Giles Lithographic & Liberty Printing Co. v. Chase, 149 Mass. 459, 14 Am. St. Rep. 439, 4 L. R. A. 480, 21 N. E. 765; Chase's Patent Elevator Co. v. Boston Towboat Co., 155 Mass. 211, 29 N. E. 470.

Michigan. Henkel v. Welsh, 41 Mich. 664, 3 N. W. 171.

Minnesota. Potter v. Holmes, 87 Minn. 477, 92 N. W. 411.

Mississippi. J. I. Case Threshing Machine Co. v. McCoy, 111 Miss. 715, 72 So. 138; Lumbermen's Supply Co. v. Poplarville Sawmill Co., 117 Miss. 274, 78 So. 157.

Missouri. Gaff v. Homeyer, 59 Mo. 346.

Montana, Hillman v. Luzon Cafe Co., 49 Mont 180, 142 Pac 641.

New York. Brady v. Cassidy, 145 N. T. 171, 39 N. E. 814; Waeber v. Talbot, 167 N. Y. 48, 82 Am. St. Rep. 712, 60 N. E. 288.

Oklahoma. Luger Furniture Co. v. Street, 6 Okla. 312, 50 Pac. 125.

Oregon. Harrisburg Lumber Co. v. Washburn, 29 Or. 150, 44 Pac. 390.

Pennsylvania. Taylor v. Saurman, 110 Pa. St. 3, 1 Atl 40; Houston v. Cook, 153 Pa. St. 43, 25 Atl 622.

Washington. Hurley-Mason Co. v. Stebbins, 79 Wash. 366, L. R. A. 1915B, 1131, 140 Pac. 381.

Wisconsin. Cream City Glass Co. v. Friedlander, 84 Wis. 53, 36 Am. St. Rep. 895, 21 L. R. A. 135, 54 N. W. 28; Thompson Mfg. Co. v. Gunderson, 106 Wis. 449, 49 L. R. A. 859, 82 N. W. 299; J. B. Bradford Piano Co. v. Baal, 166 Wis. 134, 164 N. W. 822.

3 Heath & Milligan Mfg. Co. v. National Linseed Oil Co., 197 111. 632, 64 N. E. 732 (the real question in this case was whether "gallon" meant the statutory gallon or the customary gallon, it being held to mean the latter); Dalzell v. Fahys Watch Case Co., 138 N. Y. 285, 33 N. E. 1071; Brady v. Cassidy, 145 N. Y. 171, 39 N. E. 814; Wolfert v. Caledonia Springs Ice Co., 195 N. T. 118, 21 L. R. A. (N.S.) 864, 88 N. E. 24.

4 Dalzell v. Fahys Watch Case Co., 138 N. Y. 285, 33 N. E. 1071; Brady v. Cassidy, 145 N. Y. 171, 39 N. E. 814.

5 Wolfert v. Caledonia Springs Ice Co., 195 N. Y. 118, 21 L. R. A. (N.S.) 864, 88 N. E. 24.

6Creston Water Works v. Creston, 101 la. 687, 70 N. W. 739.

7 Capper v. Manufacturers' Paper Co., 86 Kan. 355, 121 Pac. 519.

8 Slinger v. Totten, 38 S. D. 249, L. R. A. 1917C, 539, 160 N. W. 1008; Hurley-Mason Co. v. Stebbins, 79 Wash. 366, L. R. A. 1915B, 1131, 140 Pac. 381.

9 Harriaburg Lumber Co. v. Washburn, 29 Or. 150, 44 Pac. 390.

10 Luger Furniture Co. v. Street, 6 Okla. 312, 50 Pac. 125.