Boulevard Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc. v. Richardson
| Decision Date | 03 August 1979 |
| Docket Number | CHRYSLER-PLYMOUT,INC |
| Citation | 374 So.2d 857 |
| Parties | BOULEVARD, and the Chrysler Corporation, a corp., jointly and severally v. Dorothy Louise RICHARDSON, as Personal Representative of the Estate of James Theodore Richardson, Deceased. 77-743. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
James D. Brooks and Carl Robert Gottlieb, Jr., Mobile, for appellants.
James A. Yance for Cunningham, Bounds, Byrd, Yance & Crowder, Mobile, for appellee.
Plaintiff, James T. Richardson, 1 filed an action against Boulevard Chrysler-Plymouth and the Chrysler Corporation for fraud in the selling of an automobile. After a trial on the merits, the jury returned a verdict against both Defendants in the amount of $30,000. Appellants' motion for new trial was denied; and this appeal followed. We affirm.
When Boulevard Chrysler began business on February 1, 1974, and at all times pertinent to this case, it was owned by a division of the Chrysler Motor Corporation. 2 On August 27, 1974, Richardson purchased from Boulevard a 1974 metallic blue Chrysler New Yorker which had been originally delivered to Beltline Chrysler-Plymouth on November 8, 1973. When Beltline went out of business, Boulevard took possession of 91 units, including this vehicle. At the time the car was first received by Beltline, repair work for transportation damage was necessary, consisting of straightening and painting the right front door. Boulevard's records show the following "warranty work" was done on this vehicle: "Removed and replaced hood; refinished under hood; correct rust, underside; removed and refinished right, left fender panel; refinished all four door jambs." The records further reflected there was rust on the inner panel, firewall and hood hinges, and all were refinished. Additionally, the records indicated the left rear quarter panel and the underside of the deck lid were refinished.
Approximately three months later, certain dents and "wrinkles" were straightened in the lower body. Appellants state that these were "production dents." At this time the lower portion of the car was completely refinished (the mileage on the car at this time was 70 miles as opposed to 20 miles when Boulevard first received the vehicle).
Prior to the purchase by Richardson, yet other "warranty work" was performed on the car, including the following: sanding the brake lining, and correcting brake noise; lubricating the backing plate; straightening the freeze plugs; correcting the decorative lining of the quarter panel wheelhousing molding inside the trunk; correcting a wiring short to a power window; correcting a faulty defroster motor; fitting bolts in the motor housing; tightening quarter panel molding; correcting trim panel and re-aligning the carpet at the left front door. In all, Boulevard's records show that the vehicle had $402.80 of body paint work; $108.10 of mechanical work; and $43.50 of trim work. A Chrysler representative, Robert Mitchel, was informed of and gave approval to all the repair work.
When Richardson purchased the car, he told the salesman that he wanted "a new car," and he paid $5,786.13 for this particular automobile. Appellants contend that this "unusually low price" reflects the fact that the car was part of a bankruptcy-inventory purchase; and, therefore, it sold at a substantial (20% Off list) discount. Appellants' own employee who sold the car to Richardson, however, states that any new, comparably-equipped New Yorker on the lot could have been purchased for this price.
About two months after Richardson's purchase, while Richardson's wife was shopping, a shopping cart scraped paint off the door of the car. The car was taken to an automobile mechanic, Jesse Holmes, who checked the car and informed Richardson that the car had been completely repainted. Holmes found that the left front fender had been split and welded and filled with body filler, and that dents had been removed and filled with body filler on the rear door post. He found bolts were missing from the front radiator core support and testified that, in his opinion, the car had suffered an impact from the front. Holmes stated:
Appellants raise various issues concerning Richardson's right to recover for fraud. Basically, Appellants contend that the Plaintiff has failed to prove the material elements necessary to recovery on a claim of fraud. Furthermore, Appellants challenge the right of Plaintiff to recover punitive damages in this case. Appellants' arguments are based on the contention that the car sold to Richardson was, in fact, "new" as represented, there being no prior retail purchase of the vehicle. We find no merit to Appellants' contentions.
Appellants earnestly insist that we adopt a legal definition of the term "new car." They contend that "new car" should be legally defined as a motor vehicle for which there has been no prior retail purchaser and which has not suffered a substantial collision with another vehicle or object. According to this definition, insist the Appellants, this was a "new" car, because the only repairs performed on the car prior to its sale to Richardson were to correct minor defects and flaws in appearance normally expected to result from age, exposure to weather, and transportation. Appellants point to the dealer's designation, and the manufacturer's acceptance, of these repairs as "warranty work" in furtherance of their contention that they fall within the broad embrace of their proposed definition.
Not only do we decline to adopt Appellants' proposed definition of "new car," we feel that a legal definition is ordinarily unnecessary to the orderly disposition of these cases. Admittedly, extreme facts can be posed at either end of the issue, where, in one case, the car is undisputedly a new car (e. g., minor adjustment or repair which does not alter the car's condition from that normally and reasonably expected by a "new" car purchaser); while, at the other extreme, the car is obviously not "new" (e. g., a previous owner or major alterations and repairs resulting from the wreck of the vehicle).
We are not saying that in certain extreme circumstances the courts should not apply an objective legal test as determinative of the "new car" issue, though we think the occasion for such application would be exceedingly rare. Ordinarily, the issue will be a factual one. Such is the case here. From the evidence, the jury was justified in concluding, "in accordance with reasonable expectations" standards, that this car was not new.
In Mathis v. Jim Skinner Ford, Inc., 361 So.2d 113, 115 (Ala.1978), it is stated:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Willoughby Roofing & Supply v. Kajima Intern.
...gross and the misrepresentation is made with knowledge of its falsity and with the purpose of injuring him." Boulevard Chrysler-Plymouth v. Richardson, 374 So.2d 857 (Ala.1979). That is precisely what the arbitrators found in this case. Where the arbitrators are concededly vested with the a......
-
Cavalier Mfg., Inc. v. Jackson
...purpose of injuring the party. § 6-11-20(a)10; Eskridge, supra, at 933; Willoughby, supra, at 361; and Boulevard Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc. v. Richardson, 374 So.2d 857, 860 (Ala.1979).11 Alabama law states, however, that an injured party is not entitled as a matter of right to punitive damage......
-
Hines v. Riverside Chevrolet-Olds, Inc.
...sold with repaired damage was 'new' when it was sold is one of fact." Dodd, 626 So.2d at 1292; Boulevard Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc. v. Richardson, 374 So.2d 857, 859-60 (Ala.1979). Contrary to the suggestion of the Hineses, the "reasonable expectations" rule of Mathis does not impose on seller......
-
Shoals Ford, Inc. v. McKinney
...has been no prior retail purchaser, as "new" is fraudulent is usually a question of fact for the jury. See Boulevard Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc. v. Richardson, 374 So.2d 857 (Ala.1979).2 We note that Shoals Ford does not take the position that, because the truck had not been the subject of a pr......