Seixas and Seixas v. Woods

Court| New York Supreme Court
Full case name|  Seixas and Seixas v. Woods
Decided| May 1804
Defendant| Woods
Plaintiffs| Seixas and Seixas
Holding
Judgment for defendant
Case opinions
Decision by| Thompson Kent

Seixas & 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. The plaintiff Seixas & Seixas purchased wood from the defendant and alleged that he had been delivered a lower grade of wood than he had contracted to purchase.

## Summary

[edit]

The defendant received wood from a house in New Providence, which he was the agent and in the invoice it was described as braziletto, but was actually "peachum wood", a wood of inferior quality. He advertised it as braziletto and sold it to had made out the bill of parcels as braziletto and delivered it to the plaintiff. In the sales transaction neither side knew it to be other than briziletto, nor was any fraud imputed. There was no evidence of fraud or an express warranty.[3] There was no expressed or implied warranty on the wood. Upon delivery plaintiff discovered the wood delivered was not braziletto and filed suit arguing that there was an implied warranty.

The court ruled in favor of the defendant and that he was not liable to a refund and has acted in good faith. There was no warranty or deceit, the purchaser purchases at his peril and should have taken more care in inspecting the wood. Mentioning the wood as braziletto in the bill of parcels and in the advertisement prior to the sale, did not amount to a warranty.

## Significance

[edit]

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

[edit]

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

## External links

[edit]

* Commentaries on American Law by James Kent and George Franklin Comstock [1]

* v
* t
* e

United States contract law

Contract
formation|

| Offer and acceptance|

* Leonard v. Pepsico, Inc.
* Gottlieb v. Tropicana Hotel & Casino
* Kansas City Wholesale Grocery Co. v. Weber Packing Corp.
* Ever-Tite Roofing Corp. v. Green
* Lefkowitz v. Great Minneapolis Surplus Store, Inc

|

Implied-in-fact contract|

* Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Co. v. United States

Mailbox rule|

* Ellefson v. Megadeth, Inc.

Shrinkwrap, Clickwrap,
Browsewrap agreements|

* Specht v. Netscape
* Ticketmaster Corp. v. Tickets.com, Inc.
* Nguyen v. Barnes & Noble, Inc.
* ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg
* In re Zappos.com, Inc., Customer Data Security Breach Litigation
* Arizona Cartridge Remanufacturers Ass'n Inc. v. Lexmark International Inc.
* Step-Saver Data Systems, Inc. v. Wyse Technology
* Bowers v. Baystate Technologies, Inc.
* Bragg v. Linden Research, Inc.
* Feldman v. Google, Inc.

Consideration|

* Hamer v. Sidway
* Wood v. Lucy, Lady Duff-Gordon
* Kirksey v. Kirksey
* Angel v. Murray
* King v. Trustees of Boston Univ.
* Atlantic Marine Construction Co. v. United States District Court
* Salsbury v. Northwestern Bell Telephone Co.

Substantial performance|

* Lucy v. Zehmer
* Jacob & Youngs, Inc. v. Kent

Privity & 3rd parties|

* De Cicco v. Schweizer
* MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co.

Implied warranty,
caveat emptor|

* Hawkins v. McGee
* Seixas and Seixas v. Woods
* Henningsen v. Bloomfield Motors, Inc.
* G. L. Christian and Associates v. United States
* Kellogg Bridge Co. v. Hamilton

Defense against
formation|

| Illusory promise|

* Morrison v. Amway Corp.
* Harris v. Blockbuster, Inc.
* Douglas v. U.S. District Court ex rel Talk America
* McMichael v. Price

|

Statute of frauds &
Parol evidence|

* Buffaloe v. Hart
* Foman v. Davis

Unconscionable|

* Williams v. Walker-Thomas Furniture Co.
* Buchwald v. Paramount

Cancelling
Contract|

| Mistake|

* Sherwood v. Walker
* Lenawee County Board of Health v. Messerly

|

Illegality|

* Stoddard v. Martin
* SCO Group, Inc. v. DaimlerChrysler Corp.

Misrepresentation|

* United States v. Spearin
* Helene Curtis Industries, Inc. v. United States
* Laidlaw v. Organ
* Smith v. Bolles

Quasi-contract
obligation|

| Promissory estoppel|

* Drennan v. Star Paving Co.

|

Unjust enrichment|

* Britton v. Turner

*[v]: View this template
*[t]: Discuss this template
*[e]: Edit this template