Casey v. Philadelphia Auto Sales Co.
| Decision Date | 03 January 1968 |
| Citation | 236 A.2d 800,428 Pa. 155 |
| Parties | , 4 UCC Rep.Serv. 1012 Richard CASEY and Frances Casey, his wife, v. PHILADELPHIA AUTO SALES CO. and Allstate Consumer Discount Company, Appellants. |
| Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
Paul Shalita, Philadelphia, for appellants.
No appearance for appellees.
Before BELL, C.J., and MUSMANNO, JONES, COHEN, EAGEN, O'BRIEN and ROBERTS, JJ.
On December 23, 1965, the plaintiff Richard Casey purchased a used automobile from the defendant Philadelphia Auto Sales Co., for $738, with a written guarantee, for one week, that the car was in good condition. The purchase was financed by the second defendant, All State Consumer Discount Co., which required that the loan from it be taken out in the names of both husband and wife.
The car turned out to be something less than it appeared under the gleaming lights of the defendant's place of business; the transmission and the motor seal leaked, the turn signals and emergency brake did not work properly, an unneeded hole appeared in the tail pipe, the front motor mount did not hold up. The next day Casey took the car back to Auto Sales for repairs. Two weeks later it was re-delivered to him and he found that it was in worse condition than before, practically speaking. Since the alleged dilapidation revealed itself within three days after the second delivery of the car, Casey once more returned the car to Auto Sales which now demanded Casey pay one half of the cost of repairs on the basis that more than one week had expired since the original purchase. Casey felt he was being held up by such a demand, he refused to make the requested contribution, he refused to make further payments, he refused to have anything further to do with his disillusioning purchase and allowed it to remain unused in front of his house. On February 15, 1966, Allstate repossessed it.
Casey and his wife now brought a suit in equity for rescission of the sales contract, cancellation and return of the judgment note, and damages. The Court below granted the prayed-for-relief. The defendants have appealed, contending, inter alia, that Equity has no jurisdiction in a situation such as the one here described. There is merit in the defendant's legal position, if little, apparently, in the car it sold to the plaintiffs.
The plaintiffs do not allege that they were induced to sign the contract and note as the result of fraud, accident or mistake. What they allege is that the Auto Sales Company breached the terms of its one-week guarantee and that it failed to make necessary repairs to the ailing automobile they foisted on the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs had adequate remedies at law for such alleged legal mistreatment: They could have revoked acceptance of the automobile, rescinded the purchase on the basis of a substantial breach of the sales contract and brought suit against the Sales Company at law for the purchase price (Uniform Commercial Code, Act of 1953, P.L. 3 § 2, Sec. 2--711, 12A P.S. § 2--711). In the event the Finance Company would seek to enforce the terms of the judgment note, the plaintiffs could defend by alleging rescission of the purchase on which the note was based because of a substantial breach of the terms of the sales contract.
Since it must be clear from the record that the Finance Company was aware it was financing the purchase of a motor vehicle, it could not contend it was a holder in due course: Motor Vehicle Sales Finance Act of June 28, 1947, P.L. 1110, Sec. 15, as amended, 69 P.S. § 615, subds. F and G. In the case of First National Bank of Millville v. Horwatt, 192 Pa.Super. 581, 162 A.2d 60, the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Harold ex rel. Harold v. McGann
...Jamie Record Co., No. 96-cv-4672, 1999 WL 236737, at *7, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5549 at *19 (E.D.Pa.1999); Casey v. Philadelphia Auto Sales, Co., 428 Pa. 155, 236 A.2d 800, 802 (1968). In the present case, Plaintiff has alleged that his Decedent sold all rights to the Patent to McGann for th......
-
In re Brown, Bankruptcy No. 91-10588S
...by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. The most pertinent pronouncement of that court is in its decision in Casey v. Philadelphia Auto Sales Co., 428 Pa. 155, 236 A.2d 800 (1968). In that case, the Supreme Court unanimously reversed the lower court's granting of the equitable remedy of rescissi......
-
Mackachinis v. McCosar Minerals, Inc.
...sought as a remedy for breach of contract, it must generally be shown that the remedy at law is inadequate." (citing Casey v. Phila. Auto Sales Co., 236 A.2d 800 (Pa. 1968))); Stafford Invs., LLC v. Vito, No. 04-3182, 2009 WL 1362513, at *10 (E.D. Pa. May 14, 2009) (finding that rescission ......
-
Anderson v. Automobile Fund
... ... [258 ... Pa.Super. 5] Theodore Clattenburg, Jr., Philadelphia, with ... him John C. Firmin, Philadelphia, for appellant ... rather than under the Motor Vehicle Sales Finance Act ... (M.V.S.F.A.) [ 4 ] in order to obtain higher interest ... may be implied in the MVSFA. Roxy Auto Company v ... Moore, 180 Pa.Super. 603, 122 A.2d 87 (1956) ... [ 5 ] However, we are not without guidance ... In Casey v. Philadelphia Auto Sales Co., 428 Pa ... 155, 236 A.2d 800 (1968), ... ...