Candlelight Homes, Inc. v. Zornes, 1-1279A362
Decision Date | 27 January 1981 |
Docket Number | No. 1-1279A362,1-1279A362 |
Citation | 414 N.E.2d 980 |
Parties | 30 UCC Rep.Serv. 919 CANDLELIGHT HOMES, INC., Non-participating Appellant, Fairmont Homes, Inc., Defendant-Appellant, v. Thurston ZORNES, Stella Zornes, Plaintiffs-Appellees. |
Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
James R. White, New Castle, for plaintiffs-appellees.
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.
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 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 dissatisfied with the result, filed suit against both Candlelight and Fairmont. Sometime after the sale, but before trial, Candlelight was discovered to be defunct and out of business, and Zorneses proceeded solely against Fairmont. Their amended complaint, upon which the case was tried, was on the stated theory of breach of implied warranty of fitness. From a judgment in favor of Zorneses, Fairmont appeals.
Fairmont asserts three errors upon review:
"I. The evidence did not establish a breach of warranty on the part of Fairmont.
II. There was no evidence of negligence on the part of Fairmont.
III. The damages assessed against Fairmont were not within the scope of the evidence."
We find no issue of negligence as raised in Issue II, nor any evidence of negligence on the part of Fairmont on the record. Zorneses, in their brief, do not argue any issue of negligence to support their judgment. Therefore, we abandon any discussion of negligence. Insomuch as our decision on Issue I is dispositive, we will not discuss Issue III.
Zorneses proceeded in trial court upon the theory of implied warranty. The Uniform Commercial Code contains two sections creating implied warranties. Ind.Code 26-1-2-314 provides for an implied warranty of merchantability if the seller is a merchant. Ind.Code 26-1-2-315 establishes an implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose. This latter section is applicable where the seller at the time of the sale or contract has reason to know that the buyer is relying on the seller's skill or judgment. The version of the U.C.C. enacted by the Indiana General Assembly does not answer the question of whether privity is required to permit recovery under an implied warranty from a remote seller, or, as in this case, the manufacturer. This is the crux of the issue raised by the appeal. White and Summers, Uniform Commercial Code, at 333 (1972), recites the following:
(Footnotes omitted.)
The Indiana courts have adopted the majority view. In Thompson Farms, Inc. v. Corno Feed Products, etc., (1977) 173 Ind.App. 682, 366 N.E.2d 3, the court, after assuming the majority view, permitted the plaintiff to recover on an implied warranty where it was shown that the contractual arrangements between the manufacturer and the dealer created an agency relationship, and where it was further shown that the manufacturer's agents participated significantly in the sale by means of advertising and personal contact with the buyer. Under those circumstances the court held that the manufacturer became a seller within the expectations of Ind.Code 26-1-2-314.
Thompson Farms, Inc., supra, was followed in Richards v. Goerg Boat and Motors, Inc., (1979) Ind.App., 384 N.E.2d 1084. Involved there was a defective boat. Though sold by a dealer, the manufacturer's agents participated significantly in the sale by engaging in personal contact with the buyer, giving demonstrations, and attempting to adjust the loss. The court stated the Indiana position on privity as follows:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Walsh v. Ford Motor Co.
...an action for breach of implied warranty. E.g., Lane v. Barringer, 407 N.E.2d 1173, 1175 (Ind. App.1980); Candlelight Homes, Inc. v. Zornes, 414 N.E.2d 980, 981 (Ind.App. 1981); Hixon v. Sherwin-Williams Co., 671 F.2d 1005, 1010 (7th Plaintiffs have argued, however, that the "direct dealing......
-
Mac's Eggs, Inc. v. Rite-Way Agri Distributors
...in the sale. Sanco, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 579 F.Supp. 893 (S.D.Ind. 1984), aff'd 771 F.2d 1081 (7th Cir.1985); Candlelight Homes v. Zornes, 414 N.E.2d 980 (Ind.App.1981); Richards v. Goerg Boat and Motors, 179 Ind.App. 102, 384 N.E.2d 1084 (1979); Thompson Farms v. Corno Feed Products, 17......
-
Hyundai Motor America, Inc. v. Goodin
...breach of implied warranty under the UCC required a buyer to be in privity of contract with the seller. See Candlelight Homes, Inc. v. Zornes, 414 N.E.2d 980, 982 (Ind.Ct.App.1981); Lane, 407 N.E.2d at 1173; Richards v. Goerg Boat & Motors, Inc., 179 Ind.App. 102, 384 N.E.2d 1084 (1979). Co......
-
Spring Motors Distributors, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co.
...195 (Law Div.1968). These concerns can have a crucial bearing upon the nature and availability of relief. See Candlelight Homes, Inc. v. Zornes, 414 N.E.2d 980 (Ind.App.1981) (court follows majority rule that remote purchaser cannot recover economic damages under implied warranties). Compar......
-
A Seller's Responsibilities to Remote Purchasers for Breach of Warranty in the Sales of Goods Under Washington Law
...and where manufacturer authorized and consented to distributor's production plan with buyer). Cf. Candlelight Homes, Inc. v. Zornes, 414 N.E.2d 980, 982 (Ind. Ct. App. 1981) (mere manufacturer-distributor relationship does not establish agency for implied warranty of 268. 91 Wash. 2d at 706......