McCaskey Register Co. v. Truettner

1. Statute of Frauds — Sales of Goods — Contracts Within Statute. Any essential part of a contract for the sale of goods of the value of over $50 resting in parol renders it void under the statute of frauds. 2. Sales — Contract—Oral Representations — Merger in Writing. An agent solicited an order for goods of defendant, but defendant declined to buy, stating that if he afterwards concluded to order he would send direct to the principal. Subsequently he sent a telegram to the principal accepting the agent’s offer and alluding to a letter to follow, which he sent, containing all the essential terms of a contract. Held, that oral representations of the agent, not incorporated in the letter, were not binding on the principal.

Error to Gogebic; Cooper, J. Assumpsit by the McCaskey Register Company against Louis H. Truettner for goods sold and delivered. There was judgment' for defendant, and plaintiff brings error. This is an action of assumpsit, tried before the court without a jury. Plaintiff’s declaration and claim are based upon the following telegram and letter: “Bessemer, Mich. Aug. 30. “McCaskey Register Co., “Alliance, Ohio: “Accept offer of your agent for short account system. Letter follows. “L. H. Truettner.” “Bessemer, Mich. 9-2-’05. “McCaskey Register Co., “Alliance, Ohio: “ Gentlemen: This letter confirms message sent you 8-30-’05, accepting offer made by your agent for one of your short account systems and cabinet which holds 640 books, price complete #135. You may ship same along at once. “ Yours respectfully, “L. H. Truettner, H. O.” The machine was shipped, was received, put in operation, claimed to work unsatisfactorily, and reshipped by the defendant to the plaintiff. Plaintiff refused to accept it, claiming an absolute sale and completed contract. With his plea of the general issue defendant gave notice that the contract of sale, if any was made, was oral; that the value of the goods exceeded $50; and that the contract therefore was void under the statute of frauds. One McLeod was the agent of the plaintiff. He on August 24th solicited an order from the defendant. No order was given. McLeod testified that he showed defendant a sample and made a proposition of different sizes at different prices, one of which was $135; that he also proposed, that if defendant would turn in the system he was then using, he would receive 400 of its pads in exchange, or he could have 5 per cent', off for cash, and that the company, if he sent the order, would guarantee to keep the register in good condition for two years. Defendant refused to purchase, but said that if he wanted one he would send his order to the factory. Defendant and his clerk testified that Mr. McLeod represented the machine to be better than the one defendant was then using, and that McLeod offered to allow $10 in cash for defendant’s old system. The circuit judge found that the telegram and letter did not of themselves constitute a binding contract, but were based on the offer of McLeod, made August 24th, and that such offer was a part and parcel of the contract, and that the plaintiff committed a breach of its contract in refusing to accept $125 and the old system, and therefore could not recover.