Robbins

Plaintiff sued to recover the purchase price of a certain lot of glass bottles. Judgment was in its favor, and the defendant appeals from the judgment and also from an order made denying his motion for a different judgment upon the findings of fact.

Plaintiff at the time material to this controversy was engaged in the manufacturing of glass articles in the state of West Virginia and was represented in Los Angeles by a sales agent. Defendant was engaged in the business of conducting a dairy, which included the delivery of milk to customers in glass bottles. In May, 1916, defendant placed an order with the local agent of the plaintiff for a large quantity of bottles, aggregating in price the sum of $1,021.48. The contract for the bottles was in form a written order specifying the quantities and sizes of the bottles desired, and this order was signed by plaintiff’s agent and also by the agent of the defendant. Upon the face of the order appeared the statement: “Sample bottles showing exact finish wanted is being sent by express.” The bottles were manufactured and shipped to defendant, were received by hint, but he found them unsuited to his use and attempted to rescind the contract…