Court Opinion

ID: 9810345
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 21:47:45.834806+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:39:51.576129
License: Public Domain

*138Clark, J.
(dissenting): The paper, on its face, is an order by the agent on his principals, Colgate & Co., to ship to the defendants .100 boxes of soap at $3.60, less 2 per cent, discount. This was agreed to by defendants, who wrote their acceptance below the above specification of quantity and price. This made a contract. It was forwarded to Colgate & Co., who shipped to the defendants the 100 boxes at the agreed price. That evidence was introduced to explain that the price was $3.60 per box, and not per 100 boxes, does not authorize any evidence to contradict that the quantity was 100 boxes, which is unmistakably set out in the contract. Still less does the fact that evidence was necessarily admitted to show the shipment of the goods under the contract authorize oral testimony to contradict the written agreement “accepting” an order to ship 100 boxes. There are cases where the contract is partly in writing and partly oral. In such cases, the additional oral agreement is admissible, provided it does not contradict or alter the part of the contract which is reduced to writing. Nissen v. Manufacturing Co., 104 N.C., 309. But here the written agreement being to “accept” 100 boxes to be shipped at $3.60, less 2 per cent., a contemporaneous verbal agreement to take and pay for only fifty boxes is a palpable contradiction of the plain, unequivocal written terms of the contract, and was inadmissible.