Court Opinion

ID: 9545683
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 17:17:30.870751+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:15:20.399236
License: Public Domain

Schwellenbach, J.
(dissenting)—There was no express warranty, and respondent, in order to recover, must show an implied warranty. Without wishing to be repetitious, I quote Rem. Rev. Stat., § 5836-15 [P.P.C. § 860-9]:
*882“Subject to the provisions of this act and of any statute in that behalf, there is no implied warranty or condition as to the quality or fitness for any particular purpose of goods supplied under a contract to sell or a sale, except as follows:
“ (1) Where the buyer, expressly or by implication, makes known to the seller the particular purpose for which the goods are required, and it appears that the buyer relies on the seller’s skill or judgment (whether he be the grower or manufacturer or not), there is an implied warranty that the goods shall be reasonably fit for such purpose.”
There might be sufficient evidence in the record to imply that respondent made known to the seller the particular purpose for which the hay was required. But the record is absolutely devoid of proof that he relied upon the seller’s skill or judgment. In fact, the testimony is all to the contrary.
Subdivision (3) of the above statute provides:
“If the buyer has examined the goods, there is no implied warranty as regards defects which such examination ought to have revealed.”
Here the respondent was in the business of buying hay and reselling it to various customers. He knew exactly what his customers wanted, and knew how to get it for them. He had dealt with appellant for six or seven years. In the particular transaction he helped load the hay and rejected a large percentage of the bales because they did not suit his purpose. This case is distinguishable from Larson v. Farmers’ Warehouse Co., 161 Wash. 640, 297 Pac. 753, relied upon by the majority. There the plaintiff’s wife ordered “No. 1 first cutting alfalfa.” After it was delivered and fed to the stock it was found to contain lead arsenate. Clearly no examination by the buyer there could possibly have revealed this hidden defect.
There being neither an express nor an implied warranty, the judgment should be reversed and remanded with directions to enter judgment for appellants.
Simpson, C. J., and Hill, J., concur with Schwellenbach, J.
May 1, 1950. Petition for rehearing denied.