122 Iowa 703 | Iowa | 1904
Counsel for appellant seem to think that under the circumstances disclosed by the record no right was reserved to the defendant to work a rescission of the
Appellant does not question the doctrine of the authorities thus cited, but its counsel insist that as the writing signed by the parties in fact makes provision for an express
II. Counsel for appellant insist that the attempt to rescind on the part of defendant was ineffectual, for the reason that no authority on the part of the Mitchell Company to-
III. A further contention of counsel for appellant is that there could be no right of rescission on the part of defendant, inasmuch as the record fails to show that the ma-
We have, then, the question whether the machine, which upon trial proved to be a failure, may be returned to the seller and- such failure relied upon to avoid the purchase price, and this regardless of the fact that the materials of which the machine is composed possess some intrinsic value. In our view, this question does not present two sides, and the importance thereof does not warrant any extended discussion.