Court Opinion

ID: 9726754
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 13:06:50.644915+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:25:30.389435
License: Public Domain

RENTTO, J.
(dissenting).
I accept as a correct rule of law in this case the statement of the majority that “If there was no bad faith and plaintiff was honestly dissatisfied, his determination was conclusive.” That is another way of saying that “It is the fact of actual dissatisfaction that relieves him from paying for the article, and not the fact that he says that he is dissatisfied.” Garland v. Keeler, 15 N.D. 548, 108 N.W. 484, 485. However, it seems to me that the manner in which this case was tried does violence to that principle of law. Consequently, I dissent.
While the purchaser did not specifically plead his dissatisfaction the trial court treated the pleadings as raising this issue. It could not have been otherwise because under his evidence he had no other cause for complaint. With his dissatisfaction being an issue so too was its good faith. Wetter Bros. v. Otto, 179 Iowa 873, 162 N.W. 12. On this issue the purchaser need not establish his good faith. Rather, it is the burden of the seller to establish that the expressed dissatisfaction was in bad faith. Inman Mfg. Co. v. American Cereal Co., 133 Iowa 71, 110 N.W. 287, 8 L.R.A., N.S., 1140; Ard Dr. Pepper Bottling Co. v. Dr. Pepper Co., 5 Cir., 202 F2d-372.
On the trial plaintiff in putting in his case testified as as to the basis for his dissatisfaction. In so doing he described *537the performance of the machines on occasions when he used them in his operation. Defendant also introduced testimony as to some of these incidents which in several respects Contradicted the evidence of the plaintiff. It seems to me that the good faith and honesty of plaintiff’s dissatisfaction under this record presented a jury question. These are matters largely in the field of inferences to- be drawn from the evidence and I feel that in this case differing inferences Could reasonably be drawn.
In submitting the case the trial court in its Instruction 3 told the jury:
“* * * that under the provisions of the agreement for the purchase of the Michigan Model 110* Scrapers wherein it was stated, ‘These machines must prove satisfactory for ten days,’ means that the plaintiff, being the purchaser, must be satisfied with the sc'rapers sold to him and that under the holding of our Supreme Court in Reedy vs. Davidson, 58 South Dakota Reports, Page 274 at Page 277 [235 N.W. 710, at page 711], wherein it is stated, ‘An agreement providing that an article to be furnished shall be satisfactory to the party to whom it is to be supplied means that the party has reserved to- himself an unqualified option, and is not willing to leave his freedom of choice to any contention or to be subject to any investigation whatever, and the party’s own determination is final and conclusive,’ and means that the plaintiff, claiming that he is not satisfied, is entitled to have his machines returned to him and to have the agreement cancelled.”
The giving of this instruction is assigned and urged as error on this appeal. While appellant’s brief does not discuss this assignment with any degree of precision, I do not feel that such failure constitutes a waiver of the objection.
On the settlement of the instructions defendant excepted to this one for several reasons, some of which were without merit. However, it did include the -ground that plaintiff’s dissatisfaction “could not be an arbitrary statement on his *538part made simply for the purpose of avoiding liability under the contract.” See Olson v. Larson, 48 N.D. 499, 184 N.W. 984. The trial record reveals numerous occasions on which this contention of the defendant, that the dissatisfaction had to be .in good faith, was pointed out to the trial court, The fact that it was commingled with the erroneous claim that the question of satisfaction must be determined by the reasonable man standard, does not drain it of vitality. See State Highway Commission v. Fortune, 77 S.D. 302, 91 N.W.2d 675. I believe the trial court was fairly advised by the defendant’s exception as to the particulars in which it thought that this instruction was insufficient and did not state he law.
On the question of the good faith of the purchaser’s dissatisfaction in1 cases involving this provision in contracts there seems to be a difference in the rule applied depending on whether the contract involves a question of individual taste or sentiment rather than utility. 17 C.J.S. Contracts § 495d; 46- Am.J-ur., Sales, § 500; 12 Am.Jur., Contracts, § 341. In cases where the contract falls into the first category the good faith of the expressed dissatisfaction cannot be inquired into-. The Reedy case was of this type. However, in cases of contracts óf the second category' this matter is open to investigation. See also the principal authority of the Reedy case, Baltimore & O. R. Co. v. Brydon, 65 Md. 198, 3 A. 306, The present case is of this class. Accordingly, I feel that Instruction 3 was improper and prejudicial to the defendant.
I would reverse.