Seixas v. Woods

Seixas v. Woods[1] 2 Cai. R. 48[2] (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1804) was an 1804 American case which contributed to precedent around the doctrine of caveat emptor.

Summary

The following summary comes from an open source published in 1884:

In Seixas v. Woods (1804), a contract was made for the delivery of "braziletto wood," and it was so advertised and described in the invoice. A delivery was made of an article known as "peachum wood," much inferior in quality. There was no evidence of fraud or an express warranty, and it was held that an action on the case would not lie, "for selling one wood for the other." Kent, Chancellor, said : "If upon a sale there be neither warranty nor deceit, the purchaser purchases at his peril. . . . The mentioning the wood as braziletto wood in the bill of parcels, and in the advertisement some days previous to the sale, did not amount to a warranty to the plaintiffs. To make an affirmation at the time of the sale a warranty, it must appear by the evidence to be so intended, and not to have been a mere matter of judgment or opinion, and of which the defendant had no particular knowledge. Here it is admitted the defendant was equally ignorant with the plaintiffs, and could have had no such intention."[3]

Significance

Seixas v. Wood relies heavily on the English case of Chandelor v Lopus, and is the American counterpart to Chandelor in developing the rule "caveat emptor." Laidlaw v. Organ, an 1817 decision by Chief Justice John Marshall, is believed to have been the first U.S. Supreme Court case which laid down the rule of caveat emptor.[4]

References
  1. text
  2. 2 Cai. R. 48 is an abbreviation for volume 2 of Caines' Reports, page 48, which was in turn named for George Caines, who reported New York cases in the early 19th century.
  3. summary
  4. Professor Eben Moglen
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.