Court Opinion

ID: 9766003
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 04:28:33.788879+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:30:18.304848
License: Public Domain

Carretón Harris, Chief Justice, (dissenting). I do not think that the evidence established an express warranty as to the condition of the diesel engine, but even so, in my view, any warranty was waived by appellees. It is difficult to believe that Mr. Wolfe relied upon any representations made by Mr. Loe, since Wolfe commented that Loe did not know anything about diesel engines. A buyer hardly depends upon statements of a seller, unless he relies upon a superior knowledge by the seller— and this does not seem to be Hue in the present case. Not only that, but Mr. Wolfe, who has had more than forty years experience in oil drilling work, examined the engine three times before closing the sale. In addition, an adjustment was made at the time of the signing of the agreement, wherein appellants procured a longer Kelly joint and bushing at an expense of $850.00 (after complaints by appellees), and it accordingly appears to me that, in accepting the adjustment, appellees waived any alleged oral warranty. I therefore dissent as to the affirmance on direct appeal. 1 agree with the majority that there is no merit in the counter-claim, and the Chancellor’s findings should, on that phase of the litigation, be affirmed. I am authorized to state that Mr. Justice Robinson joins in this dissent.