Case Name: RICE, BARTON & FALES MACHINE & IRON CO. v. HOFFMAN-YOUMANS PAPER MILLS
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1913-07-08
Citations: 143 N.Y.S. 249
Docket Number: 
Parties: RICE, BARTON & FALES MACHINE & IRON CO. v. HOFFMAN—YOUMANS PAPER MILLS.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 143
Pages: 249–256

Head Matter:
(158 App. Div. 309.)
RICE, BARTON & FALES MACHINE & IRON CO. v. HOFFMAN—YOUMANS PAPER MILLS.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.
July 8, 1913.)
i. Sales (§ 359*)—Performance oe Contract—Sufficiency of Evidence— Waives of Delay.
In an action upon a promissory note given for the purchase price of a machine manufactured to order, where the defendant filed a counterclaim for damages caused by the delay in the delivery of the machine, evidence held sufficient to show that the buyer had waived all claim for damages caused by the delay in consideration of an extension of credit granted by the seller.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Sales, Cent. Dig. §§ 511, 1056-1059; Dec. Dig. § 359. ]
2. Sales (§ 176*)—Delivery—Waives of Delay—Consideration. ■
The extension of credit by the seller is ample consideration for a waiver and satisfaction by the buyer of all damages occasioned by delay in the delivery of a machine, whether the new agreement was made and performed before or after the breach of the contract.of sale.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Sales, Cent. Dig. §§ 436-444; Dec. Dig. § 176. ] .
Foote, J., dissenting.
Appeal from Trial Term, Onondaga County.
Action by the Rice, Barton & Fales Machine & Iron Company against the Hoffman-Youmans Paper Mills. Judgment for the plaintiff • on the referee’s report, and defendant appeals. Referee’s report modified, by inserting in lieu of the tenth finding thereof the following:
“This court finds from the evidence contained in the record that the defendant waived the provisions of the contract requiring the plaintiff to deliver the machine at the time therein mentioned, and any claim for damages by reason of such failure to deliver the machine within the time provided by the contract, or the time provided by the contract.” Judgment affirmed.
Argued before KRUSE, P. J., and ROBSON, FOOTE, LAMBERT, and MERRELL, JJ.
Steward F. Hancock, of Syracuse, for appellant.
William H. Harding, of Syracuse, for respondent.
For other cases see same topic & § number in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep’r Indexes
For other cases see same topic & § number in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep’r Indexes

Opinion:
LAMBERT, J.
The action is upon a promissory note, as to the inception of which there is no dispute; nor is it- disputed but that same has not been paid. The controversy arises with reference to a counterclaim, sought to be interposed and maintained by the defendant.
February 16, 1910, plaintiff and defendant entered into a contract whereby plaintiff agreed to sell to defendant a paper machine at the stipulated price of $12,750, and to have same ready for shipment within eight weeks. This contract provided for payment as follows: One thousand dollars upon the signing of the contract, and the balance by way of notes. The machinery was to be manufactured, and it was not ready for shipment within the time provided for in the contract, and in fact was not set up and in operation until November of that year. The counterclaim is for damages resulting from 'plaintiff's breach of such contract as to time of delivery. Prior to the agreed time of delivery it became apparent that the machine would not be completed in time to comply with the contract in that particular, and plaintiff notified defendant of such fact. A lengthy correspondence then followed between these parties, continuing until after the delivery of the machine. The failure to comply with the agreement at the contracted time seems to have resulted to some extent from labor difficulties, and there is slight intimation of some misunderstanding with reference to certain drawings furnished by the defendant. The letters from the defendant, following the notification of plaintiff's inability to deliver on time, are ample to establish a' waiver of such time of delivery. Such letters are replete with re quests to make delivery as soon as possible, and do not contain any intimation of a present or prospective claim of damages "for the delay.
Following the delivery of the machine, the defendant executed and delivered to plaintiff the promissory notes in accordance with the terms of the original agreement. These notes were renewed from time to time for short intervals, until eventually plaintiff refused further renewals of the note in suit and commenced action thereon. Extensive correspondence was had between the parties relative to these renewals and the payment of this particular note, and such letters contained no intimation of a claim for damages for delay in delivery. It was only when this action was brought that this claim was first asserted by the defendant. "
The referee has disallowed such counterclaim, upon the theory that same was waived by defendant. Such conclusion seems well established by the evidence. In June, 1910, it appears that defendant was indebted to plaintiff upon other purchases than those involved in this contract, for the amount of which indebtedness plaintiff was asking payment. On June 15th, in response, apparently, to such a demand, defendant wrote the plaintiff as follows:
"In regard to the open account, we are always willing to accommodate and play fair; but on account of your delay in shipping our machine, which is now two months, we will have to ask that you wait a short time."
Also on June 11th defendant wrote plaintiff, in speaking of this open account, as follows:
"If you will kindly hurry along our shipment, we will be glad to reciprocate in the way of settlement."
From the above and similar letters found in this correspondence, it is to be observed that defendant was claiming an extension of credit upon this open account by reason of the delay in delivery of the machine contracted for. Evidently this exchange of courtesies was acquiesced in by the plaintiff, for on September 19th the plaintiff wrote the defendant as follows:
"We are very glad indeed to know that you will put the paper over the machine to-morrow. We trust that everything will be found satisfactory in every respect, and that we will receive a check from you, as you advised us that you would send one when the machine started making up paper."
From the above it will be noted that the parties mutually agreed to an extenson of the time of delivery because of the exigencies of the situation. This would not, however, necessarily defeat a claim for damages for the delay. The parties, however, further, by the asking and the granting of the extension of credit, adjusted all such claim for damages and fully satisfied same. Defendant made claim to a right of such extension of credit because of the delay in shipment. The plaintiff acquiesced in such claim and granted such extension.
The extension of credit was a valuable concession, and affords ample consideration for the waiver and satisfaction of the damages occasioned through the delay in delivery. In effect, the parties made a new agreement, whereby the time for delivery was extended, and all claim for damages because of such delay extinguished. This new agreement was founded upon a sufficient consideration and was fully performed. -Such performance of the substituted agreement fully satisfies the original one. As was said in McCreery v. Day, 119 N. Y. page 9, 23 N. E. page 199, 64 E. R. A. 503, 16 Am. St. Rep. 793:
"The technical distinction between a satisfaction before or after breach seems to have been disregarded in this state, and a new agreement by parol, followed by actual performance of the substituted agreement, whether made and executed before or after breach, is treated as a good accord and satisfaction of the covenant."
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment appealed from should be affirmed, with costs. The last part of the tenth finding of fact contained jn the referee's report, to the effect that, when the defendant so accepted the machine and gave the renewal notes, it waived the damages is modified by inserting in lieu thereof the following:
"This court finds from the evidence contained in the record that the defendant waived the provisions of the contract requiring the plaintiff to deliver the machine at the time therein mentioned, and any claim for damages by reason of such failure to deliver the machine within the time provided by the contract, or the time provided by the contract."
All concur, except