healthy when delivered. Id. On appeal, the Supreme Court of Michigan held that the jury instruction was correct, noting that the burden of proof as to conformity with a warranty will depend on whether the goods are accepted: Had defendant never accepted these trees, this charge would have been erroneous. It would then have been an “essential part of plaintiff’s case to prove that the goods tendered complied with the contract.” ... But in this case the defendant had accepted these trees, and most of them did comply with the contract. Under these circumstances we think the burden rested upon her to prove that the trees so accepted did not comply with the contract. Id. (emphasis added) (citations omitted). Accord Bay State Milling Co. v. Szucs, 225 Mich. 509, 196 N.W. 855, 356 (1923) (<HOLDING>); R.G. Moeller Co. v. Van Kampen Constr. Co.,
holding that the burden of proving that the employee did not make reasonable efforts is on the defendant holding that the burden is on the plaintiff holding that the burden of proving lack of negligence is on the owner holding that conduct or representations relied upon by the party asserting liability must indicate an intention on the part of the buyer to pay the debts of the seller holding that where defendant buyer was furnished the brand of flour he ordered accepted and used part of it but later refused to pay for it on the grounds that it was unfit for use the burden of proving the flours condition was on him and not on the plaintiff seller