Thank You For Submiting Feedback!
In this case the evidence is held to clearly show that, while defendant's agent stated to the complainant what estimates defendant made of the pine sold for its own private purpose, he was informed that defendant would not sell promising the purchaser any such amount of timber, and that, if he purchased, it must be upon his own estimate, which he then had; and that defendant made no representation as to the amount of such timber which it intended the complainant to, or which he did, rely upon.
The parties entered into a contract for the sale of all of the seller's merchantable pine. The buyer made one payment and then cut and carried away all of the pine, and the seller brought a replevin action against the buyer. The buyer filed a bill in equity seeking to enjoin the seller from prosecuting its replevin action and to compel the seller to accept one half of the amount the buyer agreed to pay for the pine, claiming that both parties overestimated the quality and the quantity of the pine. The circuit court entered a decree in favor of the buyer, and the seller appealed.
Under the circumstances, did the trial court err in entering a decree in favor of the buyer?
The court reversed, holding that as the seller's agent told the buyer that the seller would not sell the pine at the estimates which it made of the pine for its own purposes and that the buyer had to purchase upon his own estimate, the circuit court's holding constituted the making of a new contract rather than the enforcement of the one made by the parties. The court found that the buyer knew any estimate was uncertain, that the seller made no representation as to the quantity or quality of the pine which it intended the buyer to rely upon, and that the buyer made the purchase upon his own estimate.