Continental Jewelry Co. v. WeilbacherContinental Jewelry Co. v. Weilbacher
Plaintiff, a corporation of Cleveland, Ohio, engaged in the sale at wholesale of jewelry, through J. R. De Steigner, a salesman, obtained from defendant an order for jewelry totaling $276. The jewelry was delivered in due course, but, as the purchase price was not received by plaintiff, this suit is now brought for the recоvery thereof. In defense to the suit it is contended that settlement was made by dеfendant with De Steigner; the said De Steigner having agreed to receive back some $200 worth of the jewelry, together with $45 in cash and a note due 60 days thereаfter for the balance, to-wit, $31. Plaintiff contends that the said De Steigner had no аuthority to make any such settlement, that his authority was limited to the sale of merсhandise, and that such settlement is not binding upon it.
It is contended on behalf of defendant that at the time of the sale De Steigner told defendant’s agent that the jеwelry could be returned if any difficulty was experienced in selling the same. This agreement, however, does not appear in the written contract of purchase, and, in view of the language of that contract, it appears to us that evidence tending to prove the making of the verbal agreemеnt should not have been admitted. See Civil
The particular language in the contract оf sale to which we* refer is as follows:
“Salesman’s authority is limited to taking orders оn this form and nq change or condition is binding unless, in writing on the original order accepted by us at Cleveland, Ohio.”
For several months after the receipt of the goods it is evident that defendant experienced difficulty in diposing thereof, and оn or about January 5th, which was slightly over two months after the goods had been reсeived, the said De Steigner called at the place of business of defеndant, having in his possession a printed document which was sent him by plaintiff, giving him the informatiоn necessary to call on defendant in an effort to effect settlement qf the claim. On this form defendant, through his agent, prevailed upon the said De Steignеr to write the following:
“Jan. .5, 1928.
“Reed from F. E. Weilbacher n on account #129 in full settlement (show case to remain his property) $200.00 two hundred dollars. Merchandise per invоice 333247 Cash ($45.00) forty five dollars and note of sixty days for $31.00.
“Continental Jewelry Co.
“By J. R. de Steigner.”
It is contended that, inasmuch as De Steigner had this form in his possession, defendant was justified in assuming that he had been vеsted with authority to make any settlement which in his judgment might seem best, and that thus defendant was justified in making the settlement referred to. Plaintiff meets this contention with the argument thаt the salesman had no authority to do anything except sell goods and that this limitation appeared on the original order executed by defendant. In this situаtion, however, we do not believe that the original order can be taken into consideration because that had been fully executed, and when Dе Steigner, the agent, again called on defendant, it was in compliancе with instructions from his employer, plaintiff, and he was apparently clothed with аuthority by reason of the document which he presented to defendant, and whiсh to the layman was apparently instructions from his principal authorizing him to discuss the matter with defendant and to make some adjustment thereof.
It is true that one who deals with' an agent does so at his peril. See Chaffe v. Stubbs,
The trial court found for defendant and dismissed the suit, and we think that no error was committed.
It is therefore ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the judgment appealed from be, and it Is, affirmed, at the cost of plaintiff and appellant.