Iselin v. United States
Headline: Court rejects buyer’s claim that the Government promised 'first' quality for surplus airplane linen, upholding that no warranty existed and limiting buyers’ recovery in government 'as is' sales.
Holding: The Court held that the Government never accepted the buyer’s "firsts" quality term, so no warranty arose and the buyer cannot recover for inferior airplane linen.
- Makes it harder to claim quality warranties in government 'as is' sales.
- Requires clear, written acceptance of buyer quality terms to create a warranty.
- Affirms that differing contract terms can nullify extra promises about goods.
Summary
Background
A partnership doing business as William Iselin & Company bought airplane linen from the United States and later sued for $30,000, saying the Government had promised the goods would be "firsts" in quality. The Government had advertised a public sale of about 168,400 yards of airplane linen, said the materials were sold "as is," and stated no guaranty was given. The buyers sent a bid on February 2 describing the linen as "as per sample submitted; goods to be firsts." On February 10 the Government’s New York office sent an award letter for 150,400 yards at 93 cents per yard and requested payment, but it did not mention quality.
Reasoning
The key question was whether the February 10 communication accepted the buyer’s February 2 promise that the linen would be "firsts," creating a warranty. The Court found the February 10 letter was not an acceptance of the buyer’s offer: it did not acknowledge the offer, it changed the yardage and payment figures, and it said nothing about quality. The Court relied on the well-known rule that an attempted acceptance on different terms is a rejection of the original offer. Because the Government never agreed to the buyer’s extra quality term, no warranty arose and there was no breach of warranty to recover for.
Real world impact
The ruling means buyers must get an explicit agreement to any extra quality promises when buying surplus Government property, especially where sales are advertised "as is." Purchasers cannot rely on their own purchase letters alone to create warranties unless the seller clearly accepts those terms. The judgment of the Court of Claims was affirmed.
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?