Park v. Richardson & Boynton Co.
Wisconsin Supreme Court
APPEAL from the Circuit Court for Oneida County. Action to recover damages for alleged defects and in-sufficiencies in a furnace sold by appellant to respondents in the fall of 1885, and put into respondents’ store building in Merrill, with necessary pipes and registers.
Read the full summary
APPEAL from the Circuit Court for Oneida County. Action to recover damages for alleged defects and in-sufficiencies in a furnace sold by appellant to respondents in the fall of 1885, and put into respondents’ store building in Merrill, with necessary pipes and registers. The appellant’s proposal, which was accepted by respondents and forms the contract of sale, contained the following clause: “ Should this proposal be accepted, and the terms of payment be fully complied with, we will guaranty the said furnace to work satisfactorily (if properly used); otherwise, we will substitute a size that…
1Opinion of the CourtW iNslow, J.
Under the contract of sale of the furnace the plaintiffs undoubtedly had two remedies in case the furnace proved substantially defective, either of which they might pursue:
First: They might, within a reasonable time after they had discovered the defect, notify the defendant that it was unsatisfactory, and demand its removal, in w*hich event it would become the defendant’s duty, under its contract, either to furnish a new furnace or remove the old one and refund the purchase'money; and upon failure to do either within a reasonable time the plaintiffs would have an action to recover the…
2Cited by28 opinions
- Weigel v. . CookNew York Court of Appeals · 1923
- Fox v. WilkinsonWisconsin Supreme Court · 1907
- Houser & Haines Manufacturing Co. v. McKayWashington Supreme Court · 1909
- Nunn v. BrillhartTexas Commission of Appeals · 1922
- Smeesters v. SchroederWisconsin Supreme Court · 1904
23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.