§

Ostman v. Lee

91 Conn. 731 (Conn. 1917)
Ostman v. Lee

2 Citing cases

  1. L. Albert Son v. Armstrong Rubber Co.

    178 F.2d 182 (2d Cir. 1949)   Cited 21 times

    Telford v. Albro, 60 Ill. App. 359; Foley Co. v. Excelsior Stove Mfg. Co., 265 Ill. App. 78. Ostman v. Lee, 91 Conn. 731, 101 A. 23; Lilly White v. Devereux, 15 Meeson Welsly, 285; Brown v. Foster, 108 N.Y. 387, 393, 15 N.E. 608; Eagle Manufacturing Co. v. Arkell Douglas, Inc., 197 App. Div. 788, 189 N.Y.S. 140. A much more doubtful question arises from the Buyer's use of the motor and its accessories which began on February 20th, 1946. Had that been before the telephone talk, instead of four months later, it would have brought the situation strictly within the Act; but it does not follow that the result is the same when the use follows an unequivocal rejection of all the goods.

  2. Aetna Chemical Co. v. Spaulding Kimball Co.

    98 Vt. 51 (Vt. 1924)   Cited 11 times
    In Ætna Chemical Co. v. Spaulding Kimball Co., 98 Vt. 51, 126 A. 582, and in Pictorial League v. Nelson, 69 Vt. 162, 37 A. 247, the only cases cited by plaintiff, it was held that a somewhat similar provision precluded the admission of oral evidence to show that the written contract did not embody all of the terms of the agreement.

    Such acts were inconsistent with the ownership of the plaintiff, and under the Uniform Sales Act, § 48, constituted an acceptance of the goods. 2 Williston, Sales, § 483; Loeblein v. Clements, 130 Md. 627, 101 A. 693; Ostman v. Lee, 91 Conn. 731, 101 A. 23. That the statute in this respect is but declaratory of the common law is seen from the cases of Brown v. Nelson, 66 Vt. 660, 30 A. 94, and Barrett v. Tyler, 76 Vt. 108, 56 A. 534.