Court Opinion

ID: 9866377
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-26 11:38:33.249428+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:22:19.464990
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
On motion for rehearing but one matter is presented which  we deem worthy of special comment. The point is made that since in the original contract of purchase it is stipulated, in effect, that, if the machinery was not as warranted, defendant’s sole remedy would be a rescission of the contract, he cannot avail himself of any remedy by way of damages. Reliance is had upon the cases of Rickards v. Aultman & Taylor M. Co., 64 Mont. 394, 210 Pac. 82, Advance-Rumely Thresher Co. v. Terpening, 58 Mont. 507, 193 Pac. 752, and Best Mfg. Co. v. Hutton, 49 Mont. 78, 141 Pac. 653. But none of these cases is in point under the facts shown in the record.
This case was tried upon the question whether there had been a breach of warranty; the defendant asserting that there had been, and the plaintiff denying that issue. This is shown by the pleadings, by the proceedings throughout the trial, and is presented directly by instructions given without objection. The only reason advanced in the trial of the action by the *224plaintiff as to why the defendant could not recover damages was that he had waived them by the execution of Exhibit T. But, as we have pointed out in the opinion, that position is untenable.
By reason of the conduct of the parties from the beginning, as well as their attitude throughout the trial, the stipulation respecting the remedy of rescission in the original contract, above alluded to, was waived.
The motion for rehearing is denied.
Associate Justices Stewart and Anderson, who were not members of the court when this cause was argued and decided, take no part in this decision.