Court Opinion

ID: 9653385
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 17:45:45.648792+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:12:58.688931
License: Public Domain

BINGHAM, Circuit Judge
(dissenting).
I am unable to agree with the majority opinion, wherein it is held (1) that there was no evidence from which it could be found that it was agreed and understood between the parties at the time the defendant signed the orders for September deliveries, that they were not to become binding contracts until they were accepted in writing by the plaintiff; and (2) that if there was evidence from which the jury could find that the orders were not to become binding until the plaintiff had given written acceptances, no other conclusion could be drawn from the evidence than that the defendant later waived the requirement of written acceptances by taking sugars under other orders calling for July and August deliveries.
xlt the trial Mr. Laughlin, the defendant’s president, gave the following testimony with regard to the question whether the plaintiff had agreed to give written acceptances :
“Q. Now, give us what conversation there was, as nearly as you ean recall. A. I told him that I understood that that was part of the agreement; that I was to sign those papers, and I was to have the American Sugar Refinery’s name on them to make them good.
“Q. You moan part of the agreement when you signed them? A. Yes, sir.
“Q. Well, now, what did you tell him— did you make any objection to their — well, just what did you say? A. His answer was that he had signed them. I said: ‘Mr. Johnstone, you have signed four of them, and four of them you have not. And I do not believe you have any authority to sign any of them. You have only signed as salesman — ’
“Q. What did he say? A. He said: ‘I guess that is right. I don’t think I have any authority to sign them.’ I said: ‘Well, then, I am entitled to, and I want and demand, the signature of the American Sugar Refining Company.’
“Q. Did you say anything further to *820him? A. He told me he would get me confirmations. * * *
“Q. Well, was there any other conversation at that time? A. I repeated what I told him before.
“Q. About what? A. That it required their signature to hold them if sugar went up.”
As to the question of waiver: The position of the majority of the court is that, because the defendant took deliveries of sugars under other orders calling for July and August deliveries, as to which there were no written acceptances, -it waived, as a matter of law, the requirement of a written acceptance on the orders for September deliveries. This may have been evidence of waiver, but it does not follow that no other inference than that of waiver could be drawn from it, for, on that evidence, it was equally open to the jury to find that the defendant was willing to take the July and August sugars, even though it was not bound by contract to do so.