Alphonse Weil Et Freres v. Collis Leather Co., Ltd., [1927] S.C.R. 326 (1927)

Supreme Court of Canada

Linked as:

Extract

Alphonse Weil Et Freres v. Collis Leather Co., Ltd., [1927] S.C.R. 326 (1927)

Supreme Court of Canada

Alphonse Weil Et Freres v. Collis Leather Co., Ltd., [1927] S.C.R. 326

Date: 1927-02-01

Alphonse Weil Et Freres (Plaintiffs) Appellants;

and

The Collis Leather Company, Limited (Defendant) Respondent.

1926: November 18, 19; 1927: February 1.

Present: Anglin C.J.C. and Duff, Mignault, Newcombe and Rinfret JJ.

ON APPEAL FROM THE APPELLATE DIVISION OF THE SUPREME COURT OF ONTARIO.

Sale of goods-Calfskins-Description in contract-Weight-Some skins over stipulated weight-Purchaser's right of rejection

Plaintiffs contracted to sell to defendant calfskins, of certain kinds described. Defendant refused to accept delivery, objecting as to quality, and plaintiffs sued for damages for breach of contract. The descriptions of the skins in the contracts contained the words "weight 7 to 15 lbs." or "weight 8 to 15 lbs." A material number weighed over 15 lbs.

Held, plaintiffs could not recover; defendant was entitled to reject the skins offered for delivery, and was not confined to a remedy in damages for breach of warranty; the stipulations descriptive of the weights were material terms constituting conditions of delivery; there was no evidence sufficient to establish any custom of trade, usage or course of dealing by which defendant became bound to accept overweight skins; and the right to reject such skins involved or carried with it the right to refuse a quantity materially less than that ordered, or packages with which substantial quantities of goods which defendant was not liable to accept were intermingled.

Where sellers of goods do not satisfy the stipulated descriptions, the question whether or not this is a cause for rejection or gives rise only to a claim for damages, depends upon the intention of the parties as evidenced by the contract in the light of the surrounding circumstances.

Graves v. Legg (9 Ex. R. 709, at p. 716), Bentsen v. Taylor ([...

See the full content of this document