Court Opinion

ID: 9793980
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 02:56:18.916115+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:09:35.164879
License: Public Domain

Williams, J.
(dissenting) — The correct rule to be applied to determine whether the question of rejection within a reasonable time is one of fact or of law is stated in Kleeb v. Long-Bell Lumber Co., 27 Wash. 648, 68 P. 202 (1902), quoting from Remington v. Fidelity & Deposit Co., 27 Wash. 429, 67 P. 989 (1902) as follows:
“And whether a time is reasonable or not depends upon the circumstances of the particular case. Where the facts are undisputed and the minds of reasonable men may not differ upon them, the question becomes one at law for the court; but where reasonable minds may differ upon a given state of facts, the question then is for the jury, and not for the court.”
(Italics ours.) The majority opinion omits the italicized portion of the rule. I believe under the facts of this' case that reasonable minds may differ as to when the packing cases should have been opened and the inspection made.
Howard Chapman, the prime contractor for plumbing work in the construction of the dormitory, testified as follows: “We had no way of checking the quality without opening the packing cases which then made the units vulnerable to damage while in storage.” When asked, “Do suppliers who deal in commercial fixtures such as this, recognize that their merchandise will frequently be stored on job sites?” he answered, “Yes, sir, that is correct.”
It is illogical to suppose that each of the myriad of commercial items which went into the 9-story building should have been unwrapped and inspected upon delivery to the job site. I would affirm.
Petition for rehearing denied October 5, 1972.
Appealed to Supreme Court October 11, 1972.