Opinion ID: 2164058
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: acceptance of feeder pigs

Text: 1. The purchaser shall have the right to inspect and reject any or all feeder pigs before loading. 2. When delivery is made directly to the purchaser, and purchaser has not previously inspected the feeder pigs, he shall have the right to inspect and reject any and all before the delivery truck leaves the premises of the purchaser. 3. THE PURCHASER HEREBY ACCEPTS THE FEEDER PIGS AS IS AND UNDERSTANDS THAT NO WARRANTIES EXIST IN REGARD THERETO. IT IS UNDERSTOOD THAT NO IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF FITNESS EXIST IN REGARD TO THIS TRANSACTION. Defendant insists this amounted to a waiver of any claim as a matter of law. We agree with the trial court that the meaning and effect of this provision was a matter which the jury, rather than the court, should decide. Defendant relies on section 554.2316, The Code, which we set out in part: 1. Words or conduct relevant to the creation of an express warranty and words or conduct tending to negate or limit warranty shall be construed wherever reasonable as consistent with each other; but subject to the provisions of this Article . . . negation or limitation is inoperative to the extent that such construction is unreasonable. 2. Subject to subsection 3, to exclude or modify the implied warranty of merchantability or any part of it the language must mention merchantability and in case of a writing must be conspicuous, and to exclude or modify any implied warranty of fitness the exclusion must be by a writing and conspicuous. Language to exclude all implied warranties of fitness is sufficient if it states, for example, that There are no warranties which extend beyond the description on the face hereof. 3. Notwithstanding subsection 2 a. unless the circumstances indicate otherwise, all implied warranties are excluded by expressions like as is, with all faults other language which in common understanding calls the buyer's attention to the exclusion of warranties and makes plain that there is no implied warranty; and b. when the buyer before entering into the contract has examined the goods or the sample or model as fully as he desired or has refused to examine the goods there is no implied warranty with regard to defects which an examination ought in the circumstances to have revealed to him; . . . It is quite apparent defendant sought to pattern the language of this waiver after the language of section 554.2316 relating to both express and implied warranties. Despite this literal compliance with the statute, we are convinced the waiver was not established as a matter of law. To hold otherwise would contravene those positions of section 554.2316 which direct, on the one hand, that limitation or negation of an express warranty is inoperative to the extent that such construction is unreasonable and, on the other hand, that circumstances [may] indicate otherwise, despite language claimed to constitute a waiver of implied warranty. There is substantial evidence to support a finding of breach of warranty, both express and implied. Thus the vital question is: Did plaintiff waive his claim as a matter of law by signing the instrument already referred to? We believe not. Negotiations for the purchase of these pigs were carried on orally. There was no suggestion plaintiff was to inspect them at his peril before acceptance. This matter arose for the first time, when the load of pigs arrived at plaintiff's farm. The driver of the truck then presented plaintiff with an instrument to be signed in order to obtain delivery. This was not simply a receipt for the delivery of 511 pigs, however. It included, too, the language heretofore set out which is now relied on as a waiver of claim. This instrument, it is true, gave plaintiff the right to inspect before accepting the shipment, and plaintiff made a visual examination and rejected the dead pigs and a few others which appeared to be sick. It would have been manifestly unreasonable to require that plaintiff make a thorough examination of 511 pigs at that time in order to ascertain all were fit and sound. Plaintiff testified the delivery was made about 7 p. m. on a Saturday evening. The truck driver was anxious to get home. He wanted to get the pigs off his truck. Plaintiff wanted the animals and had been waiting for them all day. He read partsand perhaps allof the waiver. He had some conversation with the driver about the animals. A minor adjustment on price was made by a telephone call to defendant. There was some urgency on both sides to unload the pigs and get them settled on plaintiff's farm. Whether the visual inspection made was adequate and whether plaintiff should have insisted on a full examination before accepting the load were questions for the jury. Stated differently, we hold it would be unreasonable to say the facts before us constitute a waiver by plaintiff as a matter of law. This conclusion applies to both express and implied warranty. We hold this issue was properly submitted for determination by the jury.