(Download) "New Home Sewing M. Co. v. Songer Et Al." by Supreme Court of Montana " eBook PDF Kindle ePub Free
eBook details
- Title: New Home Sewing M. Co. v. Songer Et Al.
- Author : Supreme Court of Montana
- Release Date : January 10, 1931
- Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
- Pages : * pages
- Size : 67 KB
Description
Sales ? Consignment ? Contracts ? Interpretation ? Parol Evidence ? When Admissible ? Words and Phrases ? Principal and Agent ? Ratification. Contracts ? When Contract not Open to Interpretation. 1. If the language of a contract is clear it needs no interpretation, and the intention of the parties in entering into it must be ascertained from the writing alone. Same ? Interpretation of Written Contract ? When Resort to Parol Evidence Permissible. 2. Resort to parol evidence in aid of interpretation of a written contract may be had only when the writing appears on its face to be ambiguous and uncertain. - Page 128 Same ? Sales ? Payment on "Finance Plan" Written on Printed Order Blank ? Ambiguity ? Parol Evidence to Explain Term Admissible. 3. In an action to recover the purchase price of merchandise (sewing machines) claimed to have been sold to defendants but alleged by them to have been delivered on consignment, plaintiff introduced in evidence a printed order for the goods obtained by its agent, which under the subject "Terms" contained the words "Finance Plan." Defendants contending that the contract did not contain all the terms agreed upon and that the words "Finance Plan" rendered the contract ambiguous, were permitted to introduce parol evidence to explain the term. Held, that the evidence was properly admitted, in that the meaning of the term is not so free from doubt that it may be said, as a matter of law, that it furnishes its own interpretation. Same ? Ambiguity Injected in Order for Merchandise by Use of Term "Finance Plan" Held not Removed by Conduct of Parties. 4. The fact that defendant buyers referred to in the last above paragraph approved the sellers offer to purchase deferred payment contracts executed on sale of sewing machines furnished by plaintiff, did not remove the ambiguity in the writing caused by the use of the term "Finance Plan" and thus render parol evidence inadmissible, it appearing that the proposal never became operative. Same ? Unauthorized Act of Agent in Making Sale ? Ratification of Part of Indivisible Contract is Ratification of Whole. 5. Where a manufacturer accepts a contract containing ambiguous terms executed by his agent for the sale of goods and acts upon it by shipping them to the dealer, he is not in position to urge that the agent was without authority to make it; ratification by him of a part of an indivisible contract is ratification of the whole. Same ? Partly Printed and Partly Written ? Writing Controlling. 6. Where a contract is partly written and partly printed and the two are inconsistent, the former controls the latter. Same ? Sale ? Consignment ? Words "Charge to" Dealer in Contract not Inconsistent With Contention That Transaction Consignment and not Sale. 7. The fact that a writing asserted by plaintiff manufacturer to evidence a sale of goods furnished to defendant dealer, but claimed by the latter to show a consignment for sale, contained the words "Charge to" defendant, held not inconsistent with the finding of the jury that the transaction was a consignment. Same ? Where Contract Ambiguous as to Whether Sale or Consignment, Parol Evidence Admissible in Aid of Construction. 8. Where a contract contains apt words both of sale and of agency (consignment), rendering its character ambiguous in this regard, recourse may properly be had to evidence of declarations, acts and conduct of the contracting parties in aid of a proper construction of the contract.