Court Opinion

ID: 6734421
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-07-20 23:17:09.496603+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:01:43.006590
License: Public Domain

ON REHEARING.
We have carefully considered the petition for rehearing, but are unable to agree to the view therein stated, and which appears -to have been the view of the learned trial judge. The contention in the petition is that sending out these experts was a waiver of the provision requiring notice to the company at the home office; or that a reasonable man would be justified in construing it as a waiver. They were sent out to remedy such defects as the company should decide to remedy, and not to make that decision for the company in any particular case. It was convenient and even necessary to have them so near their field of labor that they could readily do the work which the company might decide to do. But so placing them that they would be reasonably close to whatever work they might be called upon to perform was no evidence of a purpose to do away with the provision requiring notice at headquarters. Nor could it be construed by any reasonable man as a waiver of such notice. They were not sent out as business managers to decide whether in a given case an alleged defect should be remedied, — whether the company in case of breach of warranty would furnish another machine, as it might under the contract, or remedy the defects in the one sold; they *229were sent out as mere experts in the performance of the kind of work involved in making a defective machine a good one. On what principle, then, can it be said that the company intended to waive this provision touching notice, and, in effect, intrust these important business questions to the decision of those who were not employed or sent out for that purpose. The petition for a rehearing is denied.
(55 N. W. Rep. 580.)