Sec. 3067. Acceptance Of Performance Defective In Quantity Held Not To Waive Damages
Description
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.
Sec. 3067. Acceptance Of Performance Defective In Quantity Held Not To Waive Damages
If the defect in performance is a defect in the quantity of the performance, the acceptance of such performance by the party who is not in default is not a waiver of his right to recover damages for such deficiency.1 One who has agreed to buy a certain quantity of goods, may recover damages due to a deficiency in such quantity.2 The fact that one for whom certain work is to be done, has paid monthly statements as rendered, does not prevent him from recovering damages for a failure to furnish the number of workmen agreed upon.3
Iowa. Rhynas v. Keck, 171) la. 422, 161 N W. 486.
Oklahoma. Wallace v. Clark, -Okla. -, 174 Pac. 537.
Pennsylvania. Samuel v. Delaware River Sleel Co., - Pa. St -, 107 Atl. 700.
Washington. Springfield Shingle Co. v. Edgecomb Mill Co., 52 Wash. 620, 35 L. R. A. (N S.) 238, 101 Pac. 233.
19 For the theory that acceptance of the goods waives the right of action for damages, sec Sec. 3070.
20 England. Clydebank Co. v. Yz-quierdo y Cnstanedo [1905], A. C. 6.
United States. Phillips & Colby Construction Co. v. Seymour, 91 U. S. 646. 23 L. ed. 341.
Kansas. Johnson v. North Baltimore Bottle Glass Co., 74 Kan. 762, 7 L. R. A. (N.S.) 1114, 88 Pac. 62.
Michigan. Buick Motor Co. v. Reid Mfg. Co., 150 Mich. 118, 113 N. W. 591.
Missouri. Redlands Orange Growers' Association v. Gorman, 161 Mo. 203, 54 L. R. A. 7I8, 61 S. W. 820.
21 Brown v. Pendergast, 193 Mich. 313, 139 N W 541.
22 Cement. Hurley-Mason Co. v Steb-bins, 79 Wash. 366, L. R. A. 1915B, 1131, 140 Pac. 381.
Brick used in building.. Wisconsin Red Pressed Brick Co. v. Hood, 67 Minn 329, 64 Am. St. Rep. 418, 69 N. W. 1091.
1 State v. Arkansas Brick & Mfg. Co., 98 Ark. 125, 33 L. R. A (N.S) 376, 135 S. W. 843; Harbor Bros. Co. v. Moffat Cycle Co, 151 111 84. 37 N. E. 676; Denton v. Gill, 102 Md. 386, 3 L. R. A. (N.S.) 465, 62 Atl. 627; Avery v. Wilison, 81 N. Y. 341, 37 Am. Rep. 503.
2 Harber v. Moffat Cycle Co., 151 III. 84, 37 N. E. 676; Denton v. Gill, 102 Md. 386, 3 L. R. A. (N.S.) 465, 62 Atl. 627; Avery v. Willson, 81 N. Y. 341, 37 Am. Rep. 503.
3 State v. Arkansas Brick & Mfg. Co., 98 Ark. 125, 33 L. R. A. (N S.) 376, 135 S. W. 843.
Continue to:
My Books
