Court Opinion

ID: 7810273
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-09-07 17:12:03.768077+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:30:27.119434
License: Public Domain

Hart, J. (after stating the fácts). Counsel for appellant moved to exclude the testimony of appellees and excepted to the ruling of the court in admitting it. The court erred in its ruling. There was no implied warranty as to the quality of the flour. The contract itself was silent in this respect. In the case of a sale of personal property a warranty of its quality is a part of the contract of sale and is not a separate and independent collateral contract. Therefore proof of such warranty cannot be added to the written agreement by parol evidence. To justify the admission of a parol promise by one of the parties to a written contract, on the ground that it is collateral, the promise must relate to a subject distinct from that to which the writing relates. Our court has expressly held that a bill of sale which contains no warranty cannot be added to by proof of a contemporaneous oral warranty. Lower v. Hickman, 80 Ark. 505. In discussing the question, Chief Justice Hill said: “A warranty is so clearly a part of a sale that where the sale is evidenced by a written instrument it is incompetent to engraft upon it a warranty proved by parol. The character of the written instrument is not important, so long as it purports to be a complete transaction of itself, and not a mere incomplete memorandum or receipt for money or part of a transaction where there are other parts of it other than warranties. It may be a complete contract signed by both parties and comprehensive and exhaustive in detail, and contain many mutual agreements, terms and stipulations, or it may be a simple bill of sale, or sale note evidencing the sale. The principle is the same in any of these transactions, and oral evidence of a warranty is almost universally excluded when a complete written instrument evidences the sale. It is not important that the instrument be signed by both parties, for acceptance of the other may be equally binding, and the principle here invoked is as often applied to unilateral as to bilateral instruments.” The same reasoning applies with regard to the testimony of the test made of the sample flour sent by appellant to appellees after the contract had been executed. The sale was not made by sample, and the contract was silent in this respect. The contract having failed to show that the sale was by sample or that the flour was to be equal in quality to other flour kept in stock by appellees, or that it was to be satisfactory to appellees, it was clearly error to permit appellees to introduce parol evidence in regard to these matters. It was likewise error to permit appellees to introduce parol evidence to the effect that appellant’s salesman told them that, if the price of flour declined, they might countermaud the order, for such testimony plainly varied the terms of the written order, or contract. For the error in admitting such testimony the judgment must he reversed and the causé remanded for a new trial.