Corley v. Wilensky & Son

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Corley v. Wilensky & Son

191 S.E. 879, 55 Ga. App. 857, 1937 Ga. App. LEXIS 526

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedMay 13, 1937

Docket26144

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 191 S.E. 879 (Corley v. Wilensky & Son) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Corley v. Wilensky & Son, 191 S.E. 879, 55 Ga. App. 857, 1937 Ga. App. LEXIS 526 (Ga. Ct. App. 1937).

Pincite

Opinion

Broyles, O. J.

1. “The seller in all eases (unless expressly or from the nature of the transaction excepted) warrants that the article sold is merchantable and reasonably suited to the use intended.” Colt Co. v. Bridges, 162 Ga. 154 (132 S. E. 889).

2. Where a contract of sale contains no express warranty, and the implied warranty of the law is not excluded by the nature of the transaction or by anything in the contract, the seller impliedly warrants that the article sold is reasonably suited to the use intended; and the purchaser can defeat a!n action brought to recover the purchase-money by showing that the article, when sold, was so defective as not to be reasonably suited to the use intended. National Computing Scale Co. v. Eaves, 116 Ga. 511 (42 S. E. 783).

3. The instant written contract of sale contained no express warranty, and the implied warranty of tjie law was not excluded by the nature of the transaction or by anything in the contract. The contract did set forth the following stipulation: “It is understood and agreed that no other agreement, guaranty or warranty, verbal or written, express or implied, shall limit or qualify the terms of this contract.” However, “such stipulation does not prevent the purchaser from setting up the implied warranty of the law, upon the ground that this would be adding to the written contract by parol an additional agreement in violation of such stipulation, such implied warranty not springing from any agreement of the parties, but arising from the law.” Colt Company v. Bridges, supra.

4. Under the above-stated rulings the court erred in rejecting evidence offered by the defendants to sustain their plea setting up a breach of the implied warranty of the law. It follows that‘the court erred also in striking said plea and in directing a verdict in favor of the plaintiff.

Judgment reversed.

MacIntyre and Guerry, JJ., concur. W. (?. Warnell, Edward J. Goodwin, for plaintiff in error. Emanuel Kronstadt, contra.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Broyles, O. J.

1. “The seller in all eases (unless expressly or from the nature of the transaction excepted) warrants that the article sold is merchantable and reasonably suited to the use intended.” Colt Co. v. Bridges, 162 Ga. 154 (132 S. E. 889).

2. Where a contract of sale contains no express warranty, and the implied warranty of the law is not excluded by the nature of the transaction or by anything in the contract, the seller impliedly warrants that the article sold is reasonably suited to the use intended; and the purchaser can defeat a!n action brought to recover the purchase-money by showing that the article, when sold, was so defective as not to be reasonably suited to the use intended. National Computing Scale Co. v. Eaves, 116 Ga. 511 (42 S. E. 783).

3. The instant written contract of sale contained no express warranty, and the implied warranty of tjie law was not excluded by the nature of the transaction or by anything in the contract. The contract did set forth the following stipulation: “It is understood and agreed that no other agreement, guaranty or warranty, verbal or written, express or implied, shall limit or qualify the terms of this contract.” However, “such stipulation does not prevent the purchaser from setting up the implied warranty of the law, upon the ground that this would be adding to the written contract by parol an additional agreement in violation of such stipulation, such implied warranty not springing from any agreement of the parties, but arising from the law.” Colt Company v. Bridges, supra.

4. Under the above-stated rulings the court erred in rejecting evidence offered by the defendants to sustain their plea setting up a breach of the implied warranty of the law. It follows that‘the court erred also in striking said plea and in directing a verdict in favor of the plaintiff.

Judgment reversed.

MacIntyre and Guerry, JJ., concur. W. (?. Warnell, Edward J. Goodwin, for plaintiff in error. Emanuel Kronstadt, contra.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

191 S.E. 879, 55 Ga. App. 857, 1937 Ga. App. LEXIS 526, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/corley-v-wilensky-son-gactapp-1937.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack