King ex rel. Rayner v. Clogg

Stewart, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. Courts do not make contracts for the parties concerned. ³⁵² When a contract is brought under the review of a Court, it is merely its province to put such interpretation upon its terms, as to effectuate the intention of the parties thereto. It was competent for the parties in this case to have made a contract that a specific .lot of boots and shoes, valued by one of the parties, Clogg, the vendor, at $1250, should be assumed for the purpose of exchange, to be worth that much ; and that at such valuation they should be received by the other party, King, the vendee, in part payment for the land purchased. If Clogg would not exchange them, unless at such valuation, although they might not really be worth such sum, and King agreed to the proposition, and to take them as offered, can there be any doubt that he could not be heard afterwards, to insist, in the absence of proof, that they were warranted to be worth $1250, that he had the right, under the contract, to have a lot of boots and shoes, really worth such sum?

If he were allowed to sustain such claim, would not a stipulation be interpolated into the contract not warranted by its terms'? He was only entitled to receive them as sold and purchased. If a purchase be made without warranty in any particular, the purchaser has no right to insist upon a warranty. It is his duty to see how the contract is made, and that it contains whatever stipulation he means to insist upon.' He must use every reasonable precaution to protect himself; for the law will not indemnify him against the consequences of his own neglect of duty. 1 Parson on Con., 460. ■ Where the contract of sale is in writing and contains no warranty, express or implied, parol evidence cannot be admitted to add a warranty.

The parties here have reduced their contract to writing, and this excludes any parol evidence to contradict it or vary its terms, in the ³⁵³ absence of fraud. The due-hill in question does not upon its face, or by its fair interpretation, contain any obligation upon Clogg to deliver a lot of hoots and shoes warranted to he actually worth $1250, hut stipulates to deliver a specific lot of hoots and shoes, valued by him at $1250. Of course, there was an implied obligation on the part of Ologg to make the valuation honestly and in good faith; there is no proof that it was not so made. Hor does the due-hill contain any stipulation making the sale of the lot of boots and shoos dependent upon their examination by the plaintiff.

It was accepted and relied upon by the plaintiff as the contract between the parties, and it is the exponent of their views in regard to the lot of. hoots