SALES - WARRANTY - THEORY OF IMPLIED ASSIGNMENT

Authors

Abstract

In the recent case of Wood v. Advance Rumely Thresher Co., the following relevant facts appeared: the plaintiff signed an order for a tractor, knowing that the defendant's agent, who solicited the order, had no power to make a binding contract, and knowing, from the face of the order, that there would be no contract till it was accepted at the defendant's home office. The agent's employment was terminated before he sent the order in, so he turned it over to another dealer. The latter did not forward the order to the defendant, but wrote a new one, signed by himself as purchaser. The defendant shipped the tractor to this dealer; the dealer delivered it to the first agent, who in tum delivered it to the plaintiff. The parties to the action had no dealings till the plaintiff notified the defendant of a defect in the machine. In an action brought by the plaintiff for breach of warranty against defects of this character, it was held that there was no contract between the parties, and hence no warranty on which to sue.

Recommended Citation

SALES - WARRANTY - THEORY OF IMPLIED ASSIGNMENT, 29 Mich. L. Rev. 909 (1931).
Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr/vol29/iss7/7