CURTISS-BRIGHT RANCH COMPANY, A CORPORATION, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
CAMERON & BARKLEY COMPANY, A CORPORATION, DEFENDANT IN ERROR
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.
The Florida Supreme Court affirmed a judgment against a company for a water softener, holding that its agent's actions and the company's failure to reject the item constituted acceptance, making the company liable.
Yes, the defendant accepted the water softener. The agent's order and the defendant's subsequent failure to reject the item within a reasonable time constituted acceptance, rendering the defendant liable.
“It appears that an authorized agent of the defendant ordered an article of that nature for the defendant, using the name under which the defendant ordered goods for its own purposes, and that the delivery of the article was receipted for by the agent of the defendant, and plaintiff was not duly or within a reasonable time notified of a rejection of the article, but. as a substitute for aecep [*306] tance the defendant unreasonably allowed the article to remain where it was delivered until it was practically worthless to the plaintiff.”
This quote outlines the key facts supporting the court's finding of acceptance.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAn authorized agent of the defendant company ordered a water softener. The article was delivered and receipted for by the agent. The defendant did not…
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 Assumpsit cases and more on FLexlaw
Per Curiam.
In an action of assumpsit the plaintiff recovered judgment for an article called a, water softener. On Writ of Error the defendant contends that it did not order the article and that there was no acceptance by it of the article. It appears that an authorized agent of the defendant ordered an article of that nature for the defendant, using the name under which the defendant ordered goods for its own purposes, and that the delivery of the article was receipted for by the agent of the defendant, and plaintiff was not duly or within a reasonable time notified of a rejection of the article, but. as a substitute for aecep tance the defendant unreasonably allowed the article to remain where it was delivered until it was practically worthless to the plaintiff. This being the legal effect of the testimony, liability of the defendant appears and the charge of the court that the defendant should have “immediately” notified the plaintiff that it would not accept the article was harmless, since the verdict of the jury cured the error in the charge.
This applies to other alleged errors in the proceedings*
Affirmed.
Whitfield, P. J., and West and Terrell, J. J., concur. Taylor, C. J., and Ellis and Browne, J. J., concur in the opinion.