Davidson v. New Roads Motor Co., Inc., 13176
| Decision Date | 31 March 1980 |
| Docket Number | No. 13176,13176 |
| Citation | 385 So.2d 319 |
| Parties | Coley DAVIDSON v. NEW ROADS MOTOR COMPANY, INC. and Ford Motor Company. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US |
Andre C. Broussard, Hebert & Moss, Baton Rouge, for plaintiff-appellant.
A. S. Easterly, III, Taylor, Porter, Brooks & Phillips, Baton Rouge, for defendant-appellee-Ford Motor Co.
Paul Marks, Jr., Dale, Owen, Richardson, Taylor & Mathews, Baton Rouge, for defendant-appellee-New Roads Motor Co.
Before ELLIS, CHIASSON and PONDER, JJ.
Plaintiff appealed the judgment granting a reduction in price but denying rescission of the sale in this redhibition action.
The issues are the correctness of the granting of quanti minoris but denying rescission; and the attorney's fees.
We amend the judgment to allow a rescission of the sale and to increase the attorney's fees and then affirm.
Plaintiff purchased a Lincoln Continental Mark V for a cost in excess of $16,000.00. From the beginning there were problems with the car: the paint was "bubbled" in places, the rocker panel was damaged, rain water collected on the interior floor, the garnish molding was loose, the outside rearview mirror was loose, there was no light under the hood, an armrest was torn, and the hood was not properly aligned. Shortly after the sale, squeaks, rattles and vibrations developed. A spring in the driver's seat broke and the seat motor did not operate properly. Plaintiff noticed that the upholstery was not tacked down and there were loose wires hanging under the dash.
Even more serious problems began to manifest themselves. The car began to overheat just three months after purchase and it was difficult to keep water in it. There was one instance when oil mixed with antifreeze came out of the dipstick hole. The pulley on the power steering sheared off. The E.G.R. plate was leaking. The engine would not start for two months. The ignition module and the intake manifold were changed. The power steering and brakes needed adjustment. The transmission was noisy. Plaintiff testified that the drive shaft felt loose. The emergency brake would not release and a window had to be pulled up manually.
Plaintiff brought his car back to the dealer approximately seven times in the first eleven months. The number is uncertain because on several occasions no ticket was written by the service department and on other occasions the tickets were "lost" by the dealer. Plaintiff also brought his car to two dealers in Baton Rouge for repairs. He had to have it towed three times, twice in the first year he owned it and a third time in three more months.
Plaintiff called the Ford Motor Company in Michigan twice and in New Orleans twice seeking help. He testified he received no relief.
Plaintiff continues to have difficulties with the car. Water still collects inside the car when it rains, the paint has not been repaired, and neither the seat motor nor the front window operate properly.
Civil Code Article 2520 states:
"Redhibition is the avoidance of a sale on account of some vice or defect in the thing sold, which renders it either absolutely useless, or its use so inconvenient and imperfect, that it must be supposed that the buyer would not have purchased it, had he known of the vice."
Multiple defects can collectively form the basis of a redhibitory action even though many of the defects are minor or have been repaired. Cangelosi v. McInnis Peterson Chevrolet, Inc., 373 So.2d 1346 (1st Cir. 1979) and Perrin v. Read Imports, Inc., 359 So.2d 738 (4th Cir. 1978).
Latent defects appearing well after the sale can be a basis for redhibition if they are not the normal result of ordinary use. Moreno's Inc. v. Lake Charles Catholic H.S., Inc., 315 So.2d 660 (La.1975) and Perrin, supra.
Plaintiff purchased a luxury car for which he paid a considerable sum of money. It was a car he dreamed of owning for years and he understandably had high expectations of its performance. The manufacturer and the dealer contributed to these expectations.
Defendants did not refute the testimony of plaintiff and his witnesses as to the existence of the problems. They offered no alternative explanation for the defects nor did they deny the many attempts of plaintiff to resolve the problems. There was no proof that plaintiff abused the vehicle.
Defendants argue that plaintiff did not tender the car for repairs, because, after eighteen months of frustrations, he refused to allow defendants to try to remedy the situation and instead decided to file suit. Defendants' position is untenable. The plaintiff had been...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wheeler v. Clearview Dodge Sales
...form the basis of the redhibitory action even though many of the vices are minor or have been repaired. Davidson v. New Roads Motor Co., Inc., 385 So.2d 319 (La.App. 1st Cir.1980); writ den. 391 So.2d 454 The facts herein show that the van was purchased by the plaintiffs on January 31, 1980......
-
Young v. Ford Motor Co., Inc.
...the defects, the buyer is entitled to a rescission of the sale instead of merely a reduction in the price. Davidson v. New Roads Motor Co., Inc., 385 So.2d 319 (La.App. 1st Cir.), writ denied, 391 So.2d 454 In LaFrance v. Abraham Lincoln Mercury, Inc., 462 So.2d 1291, 1294-95 (La.App. 5th C......
-
Alleman v. Hanks Pontiac-GMC, Inc.
...form the basis of a redhibitory action even if many of the defects are minor or have been repaired. Davidson v. New Roads Motor Co., Inc., 385 So.2d 319, 321 (La.App. 1st Cir.1980), writ denied, 391 So.2d 454 (La.1980), and cases cited A District Court's findings of fact may not be reversed......
-
Williams v. Toyota of Jefferson, Inc.
...finance charges, cost of substitute transportation and cost of repairs and attempted repairs, according to Davidson v. New Roads Motor Co., Inc., 385 So.2d 319, 322 (La.App. 1st Cir.), writ denied, 391 So.2d 454 (La.1980). As was noted above, the bill of sale introduced into evidence by the......