Court Opinion

ID: 9628963
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 09:35:06.74724+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:07:13.772620
License: Public Domain

Grady, C. J.
(dissenting) — It is my view that the rights, duties, and obligations of appellant and respondent are governed by the written contract and RCW 63.04.160, and that RCW 63.04.720 does not apply.
Respondent had a field of potatoes that were of the white rose and netted gem varieties. Appellant handled potatoes both as a broker and buyer. The potatoes were raised for sale on the market for human consumption. Appellant sought to purchase the potatoes. Respondent expressed the desire to sell all of the potatoes that had been grown. When appellant was writing a contract, respondent was not certain that the word “bulk” meant all of the potatoes and requested that the words “field run grade” be added.
The agricultural department of Washington has provided that standard grades are U. S. No. 1 and U. S. No. 2. These grades cannot contain potatoes afflicted with internal discoloration. Before making the contract, appellant opened some of the hills of the potatoes to determine their condition as to size, and cut some of them open to determine if they had any internal defects. He found that because of their size, they ran well to No. l’s.
The contract carried with it an implied warranty that the potatoes were and would be when delivered free from internal discoloration. All of the negotiations the parties had leading up to and including the signing of the contract indicate they were contracting to sell and purchase potatoes that were marketable.' To say otherwise would be to charge respondent with dishonesty and appellant with purchasing potatoes for resale as food that would not pass state or Federal inspection, and hence not marketable as potatoes to be used for human consumption.
*385When the white rose potatoes were delivered, inspectors discovered many of them were discolored internally. This affliction is termed “heat necrosis.” The potatoes were rejected by the inspectors, and appellant declined to accept them. They were not rejected by the inspectors because they were “culls” as that word is understood to mean both in the trade and by inspection rules, but because the No. l’s and No. 2’s were discolored internally.
It is my opinion that appellant was legally justified in refusing to accept delivery of the afflicted potatoes, and that respondent is not entitled to recover the contract price therefor.
When the inspectors discovered the fact that the potatoes were afflicted with heat necrosis, the whole picture changed. Respondent took the position he had contracted to sell all of the potatoes regardless of how afflicted or diseased they might be and has asserted that this was what he had in mind when he made the contract. Appellant stood on his contract and the statutory implied warranty.
The situation became complicated and confusing at the trial when it was claimed that the contract was ambiguous and that it should be submitted to the jury for both interpretation and construction; also, when it was claimed that by custom in the potato business the statutory implied warranty was excluded.
The contract is very plain to me, and it is my opinion that it covered all of the potatoes in the field that were free from internal discoloration. No claim is made that the white rose potatoes had any other defect that would have made them unmarketable.
I have not given any consideration to the counterclaim based upon the alleged fraudulent conduct of respondent because of the affirmance of the order of the trial court awarding a new trial on such issue.