414 N.E.2d 980 (Ind.App. 1 Dist. 1981), 1-1279A362, Candlelight Homes, Inc. v. Zornes

Docket Nº:1-1279A362.
Citation:414 N.E.2d 980
Party Name:CANDLELIGHT HOMES, INC., Non-participating Appellant, Fairmont Homes, Inc., Defendant-Appellant, v. Thurston ZORNES, Stella Zornes, Plaintiffs-Appellees.
Case Date:January 27, 1981
Court:Court of Appeals of Indiana

Page 980

414 N.E.2d 980 (Ind.App. 1 Dist. 1981)

CANDLELIGHT HOMES, INC., Non-participating Appellant,

Fairmont Homes, Inc., Defendant-Appellant,

v.

Thurston ZORNES, Stella Zornes, Plaintiffs-Appellees.

No. 1-1279A362.

Court of Appeals of Indiana, First District.

January 27, 1981

Charles S. Brown, Jr., Nancy S. Brown, New Castle, for Fairmont Homes, inc.

James R. White, New Castle, for plaintiffs-appellees.

NEAL, Presiding Judge.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

This is an appeal from an adverse judgment in the Jennings Circuit Court by defendant-appellant Fairmont Homes, Inc. (Fairmont), after a trial by a jury, in a suit for breach of an implied warranty of fitness of a mobile home brought by plaintiffs-appellees Thurston Zornes and Stella Zornes (Zorneses).

We reverse.

STATEMENT OF THE FACTS

The evidence most favorable to support the judgment, and necessary for this decision, is as follows: On April 24, 1973, Zorneses purchased a mobile home from Candlelight Homes, Inc. (Candlelight). Candlelight was engaged in the business of selling mobile homes at retail and was an authorized dealer for Fairmont, a manufacturer of mobile homes. In addition, Candlelight sold mobile homes of other manufacturers. Zorneses went through a model Fairmont mobile home sitting on Candlelight's premises, and looked at Fairmont's literature. Later Zorneses entered into a written contract with Candlelight to purchase a mobile home like the model. The contract was wholly with Candlelight, and the only mention of Fairmont in it was that the mobile home was a "Fairmont." Candlelight submitted an order for the mobile home to Fairmont and Fairmont delivered the one in dispute to Candlelight. Candlelight, pursuant to its contract, delivered it

Page 981

to Zorneses' real estate and installed it. There was no evidence that Fairmont, up to this point, ever had any dealings with Zorneses. It manufactured the mobile home, sold it to Candlelight, and Candlelight, its authorized dealer, sold it to Zorneses.

Evidence disclosed that the mobile home had numerous defects. There was no evidence of any particular act on the part of Fairmont which caused the defects. The defects were simply there. Some evidence was presented by Fairmont that Candlelight had damaged the mobile home in delivery. Notice of the defects was given Fairmont; its agents made some repairs, and offered to make others, but they were never undertaken. Zorneses, being...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP
19 practice notes
19 cases