Whether the discharge of a right of action for damages is explained on the theory of a new contract, or on the theory of estoppel, or whether it is explained as a waiver without reference to the reasons for regarding the right of action as waived, the right of action is not discharged in any of these ways unless the party who is not in default knew of the breach, or at least unless he had the means of knowing of such breach.1 If the seller delivers less than the quantity agreed upon, and the buyer resells the goods before discovering such deficiency, the buyer may maintain an action against the seller to recover damages for such deficiency, and he is not limited to his right of avoiding the sale and returning the goods.2 Acceptance of goods delivered under a contract of sale does not waive a claim for damages for latent defects which are not known to the buyer and which can not be discovered with reasonable diligence.3 Acceptance of an article which is sold under a warranty, is not a waiver of defects which were not known to the buyer when he accepted such article.4 Acceptance of a building does not prevent the owner from recovering for defects which were not known to him at the time of such acceptance.5 Taking possession of a building does not waive defects which can not be detected by inspection at the time, but will develop by use,6 such as defects in plastering, by reason of which the plaster subsequently falls,7 or defects in varnish.8 If the property owner knows of certain defects when he accepts the building, such knowledge does not prevent him from recovering damages for other defects of which he did not know at the time,9 especially if demand is made for correcting such defects,10 or if provision is made for the adjustment

United States. Carleton v. Jenks, 80 Fed. 937; United States v. Walsh, 108 Fed. 502.

Colorado. Gilette v. Young, 45 Colo. 562, 101 Pac. 766.

Illinois. Beck Coal & Lumber Co. v. H. A. Peterson Mfg. Co., 237 111. 250, 86 N. E. 715.

Iowa. Hirshhorn v. Stewart, 49 la. 418; Houlette v. Arntz, 148 la. 407, 126 N. W. 796.

New York. Dounce v. Dow, 57 N. Y. 16; Gurney v. Atlantic & G. W. R. Co., 58 N. Y. 358; Dounce v. Dow, 64 N. Y. 411; Norton v. Dreyfuss, 106 ' N. Y. 90, 12 N. E. 428; Coplay Iron Co. v. Pope, 108 N. Y. 232, 15 N. E. 335; Studer v. Bleistein, 115 N. Y. 316, 5 L. R. A. 702, 22 N. E. 243; Pier-son v. Crooks, 115 N. Y. 539, 12 Am. St. Rep. 831, 22 N. E. 349.

7 McConnell v. Corona City Water Co., 149 Cal. 60, 8 L. R. A. (N.S.) 1171, 85 Pac. 929; Whitehead v. Brothers' Lodge (Ky.), 62 S. W. 873; Siebert v. Roth, 118 Wis. 250, 95 N. W. 118.

8 McConnell v. Corona City Water Co., 149 Cal. 60, 8 L. R. A. (N.S.) 1171, 85 Pac. 929.

9 Montgomery v. New York, 151 N. Y. 249, 45 N. E. 550.

1 California. Leonard v. Home Builders, 174 Cal. 65, L. R. A. 1917C, 322, 161 Pac. 1151.

Iowa. Brent v. Head, 138 la. 146, 16 L. R. A. (N.S.) 801, 115 N. W. 1106; Schillinger Bros. Co. v. Bosch-Ryan Grain Co. (la.), 116 N. W. 132.

Kentucky. Ludlow Lumber Co. v. Kuhling, 119 Ky. 251, 115 Am. St. Rep. 254, 83 S. W. 634.

Maryland. Denton v. Gill, 102 Md. 386, 3 L. R. A. (N.S.) 405, 62 Atl. 627.

Missouri. Haysler v. Owen, 61 Mo. 270.

New York. Oawego Falls Pulp & Paper Co. v. Steelier Lithographic Co., 215 N. Y. 98, L. R. A. 1916B, 1257, 109 N. E. 92 (obiter).

Washington. Elkstrand v. Barth, 41 Wash. 321, 83 Pac. 305.

2 Denton v. Gill, 102 Md. 386, 3 L. R. A. (N.S.) 465, 62 Atl. 627.

3 John A. Roebling's Sons Co. v. Southern Power Co., 142 Ga. 464, L. R. A. 1915B, 900, 83 S. E. 138.

4 W. F. Main Co. v. Field, 144 N. Car. 307, 119 Am. St. Rep. 956, 11 L. R. A. (N.S.) 245, 56 S. E. 943; Fairbanks Steam Shovel Co. v. Holt, 79 Wash. 361, L. R. A. 1915B, 477, 110 Pac. 394.

5 Brent v. Head, 138 la. 146, 16 L. R. A. (N.S.) 801, 115 N. W. 1106; Elk-strand v. Barth, 41 Wash. 321, 83 Pac. 305.

6 Illinois. Monahan v. Fitzgerald, 164 111. 525, 45 N. E. 1013.

Iowa. Brent v. Head, 138 la. 146, 16 L. R. A. (N.S.) 801, 115 N. W. 1106.

Kentucky. Ludlow Lumber Co. v. Kuhling, 119 Ky. 251, 115 Am. St. Rep. 254, 83 S. W. 634 (defect not discovered for eight months after taking possession).

Missouri, Spink v. Mueller, 77 Mo. App. 85.

Washington. Elkstrand v. Barth, 41 Wash. 321, 83 Pac. 305.

7 Monahan v. Fitzgerald, 164 III. 525, 45 N. E. 1013.

8 Spink v. Mueller, 77 Mo. App. 85.

9 Brent v. Head, 138 la. 146, 16 L. R. A. (N.S.) 801, 115 N. W. 1106; Schillinger v. Bosch-Ryan Grain Co., 145 la. 750, 122 N. W. 961. [affirming, 116 N. W. 132].

10 Schillinger v. Bosch-Ryan Grain Co., 145 la. 750, 122 N. W. 961 [affirming, 116 N. W. 1321.

thereof.11 A payment for machinery, made before it is completed, does not waive a claim for damages for defects in machinery or for delay in completing it.12 The use of finishing material does not waive a claim for damages for defects not then discoverable which develop as it seasons.13 Payment may, however, be evidence of such waiver.14