{ "id": 1513823, "name": "Chicago Pneumatic Tool Company v. Sims", "name_abbreviation": "Chicago Pneumatic Tool Co. v. Sims", "decision_date": "1909-05-31", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "583", "last_page": "585", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "90 Ark. 583" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ark.", "id": 8808, "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 34, "name_long": "Arkansas", "name": "Ark." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "34 N. W. 509", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.W.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "25 Ark. 204", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "5 Ark. 395", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 8727395 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/5/0395-01" ] }, { "cite": "72 Ark. 343", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1505625 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/72/0343-01" ] }, { "cite": "31 Ark. 376", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "4 Ark. 467", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 8729037 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/4/0467-01" ] }, { "cite": "17 Ark. 603", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 8726902 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/17/0603-01" ] }, { "cite": "33 Minn. 32", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Minn.", "case_ids": [ 8876697 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/minn/33/0032-01" ] }, { "cite": "34 N. W. Rep. 509", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.W.", "opinion_index": 0 } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 374, "char_count": 6105, "ocr_confidence": 0.682, "pagerank": { "raw": 5.527646540942415e-08, "percentile": 0.34596399249531534 }, "sha256": "9fc75796626c355607ca1b9fefffe159d9ce3780d89f8ab0c293abe810da542f", "simhash": "1:52918c6adbe558f0", "word_count": 1076 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:13:08.486087+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "Chicago Pneumatic Tool Company v. Sims." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Wood, J.\n(after stating the facts). We can not explore the record to determine whether the instructions were correct, but assume, in the absence of all the instructions, -that the court correctly charged the jury.\nThe evidence adduced by appellee was clearly sufficient to support the verdict in his favor. Appellant contends that, as the evidence does not show that appellee returned or offered to return the compressor, he cannot recover. But a return or offer to return the machinery under the terms of this contract was not necessary. The appellant \u201cbinds itself to take back said machinery and to refund the money\u201d if the compressor does not throw the water as specified. Where machinery is sold on a guaranty to do certain work, or, if not, that the seller will refund the purchase money, then, if the vendee makes a bona tide test thereof under his contract, and finds the same not according .to the warranty, and so notifies the vendor, and also notifies him that he (the vendee) declines to accept it, it is not a prerequisite to recovery of the purchase money that he should return or offer to return the machinery unless there is an express agreement so to do. The contract in such case remains executory until the warranty has been discharged or there has been a-waiver thereof by acceptance on the part of the vendee. The legal effect of this contract is \u201ca sale on approval\u201d or on compliance by the vendor with the conditions named. For the seller virtually agrees that the machinery shall do what the buyer wants it to do, as specified in the contract. Exhaust Ventilator Company v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co., 34 N. W. Rep. 509; McCormick Harvesting Machine Co. v. Chesrown, 33 Minn. 32.\nBut, of course, the machinery under such contract, if the conditions fail, belongs to the vendor, and he may retake it at any time after he has received notice that the vendee has not accepted same.\nNo reversible error being found, the judgment is affirmed.", "type": "majority", "author": "Wood, J." } ], "attorneys": [ "S. IT. Mann, for appellant.", "I. H. Harrod and C. B. Thweatt, for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "Chicago Pneumatic Tool Company v. Sims.\nOpinion delivered May 31, 1909.\nSale oe chattels \u2014 breach oe warranty \u2014 recovery oe purchase money.\u2014 A contract for the sale of machinery whereby .the vendor warrants that it will do certain work or he will refund the purchase money is executory until the warranty has been discharged or waived; and where the vendee makes a bona fide test, and finds the machinery not according to the warranty, and notifies the vendor of same and that he declines to accept it, he may recover the purchase money without offering to return the machinery, unless .there is an express agreement to do so.\nAppeal from Prairie Circuit Court, Southern District; Eugene Eankford, Judge;\naffirmed.\nstatement by the court.\nOn September 25, 1907, appellant sold appellee an air compressor under a contract containing this provision: \u201cThe said party of the first part guaranties and warrants that the said air compressor aforesaid shall and will at a working depth of not exceeding sixty feet below the surface throw 2,000 gallons of water per minute, and at a working depth of not exceeding sixty-five feet below the surface throw 1,800 gallons of water per minute, and at a working depth of seventy feet below the surface throw 1,650 gallons of water per minute, and said first party is to install said air compressor and to put the same in good working condition, and said second party is to pay the expenses of said installation, with the exception of the expense of one man, who is to be furnished by said first party, and who is to oversee and superintend said installment, and to make connections necessary to be made in making said installment.\u201d\nThere was also the following stipulation: \u201cIt is further understood and agreed by the parties hereto that the machinery sold to second party is to be tested on the farm of said second party, and that said second party shall notify said first party when said test shall be made, and the same shall be made not later than July 4, 1908. And in the event the said air compressor fails to throw the amount of water hereinbefore guarantied under the conditions specified herein, then the said first party agrees and binds itself to take back said machinery and to refund to the said second party the said sum of $1,879.61, together with $187.50 freight paid by the said second party.\u201d\nAppellee paid the purchase price and the freight, and the air compressor was delivered and installed by appellant\u2019s agent, and, according to appellee\u2019s testimony, tested by him, but did not throw the amount of water that the contract warranted it would. After the first test on October 25, 1907, Sims wrote the company that he did not get over six hundred gallons per minute, and insisted on the company\u2019s sending a man down to make the test. The company did not send any one to make another test, and Sims waited until December 5, 1907, and, the company still having done nothing, he brought suit to recover his purchase money and freight.\nIn its answer the appellant \u201cdenies that compressor has been tested, or that it has been notified by appellant that he was ready to make the test. That provisions in last contract that appellant should be notified so that its agent could be present were material, in order that fair test would be made, and that it had until July 4 to make test.\u201d\nThe appellants set out the evidence in full in its abstract, but the instructions are not set out.\nS. IT. Mann, for appellant.\nBefore he could recover, appellee must have returned or offered to return to appellant the machinery in question. Beach, Mod. Daw of Contracts \u00a7 \u00a7 793-795; 24 Am. & Eng, Enc. of L. 1105, iiio-iiii ; 17 Ark. 603; 4 Ark. 467; 31 Ark. 376; 1 Benjamin on Sales, Kerr Ed., *412; Id. *434; 72 Ark. 343; 5 Ark. 395; 25 Ark. 204; Tiedeman on Sales, \u00a7 163.\nI. H. Harrod and C. B. Thweatt, for appellee.\nThere was no express agreement in the contract by appellee to return the machinery if it was not satisfactory, but, on the contrary, appellant did bind itself to take it back. To return or offer to return the machinery under the terms of this contract was not N. W. 561; 34 N. W. 509." }, "file_name": "0583-01", "first_page_order": 607, "last_page_order": 609 }