J. W. BRAXTON, APPELLANT,
v.
CHARLES C. LIDDON AND THOMAS B. LIDDON, COPARTNERS UNDER THE FIRM NAME OF C. C. LIDDON & COMPANY, APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Braxton appeals a decree in favor of Liddon & Company on a fertilizer sales contract. The Florida Supreme Court reversed, holding that contractual language purporting to disclaim warranties and require buyer certification cannot estop defenses based on the state's fertilizer inspection and labeling law, which is designed to protect buyers and cannot be nullified by private agreement.
The court held that the contractual language does not create an estoppel against the defenses asserted in the answer because such an effect would violate public policy by allowing manufacturers and dealers to nullify the protections afforded by the state's fertilizer inspection and labeling statute. The defenses set forth in the answer, particularly the failure of consideration defense, are legally sufficient if proven true.
“To give it that effect would be putting it in the power of manufacturers and dealers to require buyers to sign contracts, which would practically nullify the provisions of Chapter 4983, and would aid in the enforcement of contracts which are plainly against public policy.”
Establishes the court's public policy rationale for refusing to enforce contractual disclaimers that would undermine the fertilizer inspection statute
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBraxton purchased fertilizers from C. C. Liddon & Company under a contract containing language stating the vendors do not warrant the fertilizers' qua…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Failure Of Consideration cases and more on FLexlaw
Hocker, J.,
(after stating the facts.)
The first assignment of error challenges-that part of the decree of the Chancellor in which he struck from the files the supplemental answer -of the defendant Braxton! This supplemental answer was filed without a motion or cause shown after notice, and without leave or order of the judge, and was, therefore, filed in violation of Rule 61 of the Rules of the Circuit Courts in Equity. The. Chancellor did not err in striking it from the files.
The' next assignment of error questions the decree rendered in favor of the complainants. The cause was set down for hearing by complainants below, and heard upon the bill, answer and exhibits; no testimony having been taken by either party.
Unless it can be held that the language of the instrument sued on creates an estoppel against the defenses of the answer, then the question presents itself as to the sufficiency of the defenses, and the further question whether the burden of proof as to the consideration was not thrown upon the complainants. That language is as follows: “It is expressly covenanted and agreed that the vendors do not warrant the aforesaid fertilizers as to quality or its effect upon crops or otherwise, but that the same is bought on my (vendee’s) judgment with all faults at my í’isk. I admit that I have personally examined each and every package of said fertilizer, and that it has been duly analyzed and inspected and is labelled and tagged as required by law,” &c. Chapter 4983, laws of 1901, provides for the inspection and analysis of fertilizers and regulates their sales. The act is intended to protect those who buy fertilizers, and by its fourth section makes it a misdemeanor for any manufacturer or dealer to misrepresent the proportion of ammonia, phosphoric acid , or potash or other ingredients contained in such fertilizers. We are of opinion that the language of the instrument sued on does not operate as an estoppel. To give it that effect would be putting it in the power of manufacturers and dealers to require buyers to sign contracts, which would practically nullify the provisions of Chapter 4983, and would aid in the enforcement of contracts which are plainly against public policy. 15 Am. & Eng. Ency. Law (2nd ed.) 1014; 9 Cyc. 474, et seq, and cases cited; Pacific Guano Co. v. Mullen, 66 Ala. 582: Prescott v. Battersby, 119 Mass. 285; Strand v. Griffith, 97 Fed. Rep. 854; Cook v. Fernandez, 11 Fla. 100; Bryan v. Dennis, 4 Fla.
445. We are also of opinion that the first and second paragraphs of the answer taken in connection with the fifth set up good defenses to this suit, if they shall be found to be time, and we are still further of opinion that the first paragraph sufficiently sets up the defence of a failure of consideration, which under the rule of this court imposed the burden of proof upon the complainants to overcome this defence. Kellogg v. Singer Manufacturing Company, 35 Fla. 99, 17 South. Rep. 68.
This case having been finally heard, and the decree, having' been made on the bill, answer and replication, without testimony, it follows that the court below erred in making the decree in favor of the complainants. The decree is reversed with directions for such other proceedings as may be in accordance with equity.
, Taylor and Cockrell, JJ., concur. Whitfield, C. J., and Shackleford, J.. concur in the opinion.
Parkhill, J., disqualified
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hendricks v. Stark, 99 Fla. 277 (Fla. 1930)…se to it, as between the original parties, but the proof should be as clear and convincing as that required for the reformation of a written instrument.” Citing Mayo v. Hughes, supra, Otis v. McCaskill, 51 Fla. 516, 41 So. R. 458; Braxton v. Liddon, 49 Fla. 280, 38 So. R. 717. In a bill seeking the reformation of á written instrument, it must' be positively and directly alleged that the representations inducing the execution of the contract were relied on and were false and that the party asking for a ref…
-
Smith v. O'Brien, 75 Fla. 252 (Fla. 1918)…ant sets up a failure of consideration for the obligation sued on, and the rule in such cases is that the burden of proving the consideration is upon the complainant in the bill. Otis v. McCaskill, 51 Fla. 516, 41 South. Rep. 458; Braxton v. Liddon, 49 Fla. 280, 38 South. Rep. 717; Kellogg v. Singer Manuf’g. Co., 35 Fla. 99, 17 South. Rep. 68. Another applicable principle frequently reiterated by this court, is that the findings of the Chancellor on the facts where the evidence is taken before a special m…
-
Daubmyre v. Hunter, 86 Fla. 326 (Fla. 1923)…denied, the burden of proving it rested upon the complainant. Dees [*329] v. Am. Agr. Chem. Co., 86 Fla. 28, 96 South. Rep. 289; Smith v. O’Brien, 75 Fla. 252, 78 South. Rep. 13; Otis v. McCaskill, 51 Fla. 516, 41 South. Rep. 458; Braxton v. Liddon, 49 Fla. 280, 38 South. Rep. 717; Kellogg v. Singer Mnfg. Co., 35 Fla. 99, 17 South, Rep. 68. The contract, if it be conceded that there was one, contained nothing providing for various contingencies that would necessarily arise with respect to the property and…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Kellogg v. Singer Mfg. Co., 35 Fla. 99 (Fla. 1895)
- Heirs of Jacob Bryan v. Dennis, 4 Fla. 445 (Fla. 1852)
- Cook v. Fernandez, 11 Fla. 100 (Fla. 1865)