Dickson v. U-J Chevrolet Co., Inc., U-J
Citation | 454 So.2d 964 |
Decision Date | 13 July 1984 |
Docket Number | U-J |
Parties | 39 UCC Rep.Serv. 470 Charles M. DICKSON, Jr. v.CHEVROLET COMPANY, INC., a corp. 82-1298. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
John M. Tyson, Jr. of Tyson & Tyson, Mobile, for appellant.
Alex T. Howard, Jr., Richard T. Dorman, and Robin S. Brigham of Johnstone, Adams, May, Howard & Hill, Mobile, for appellee.
Charles M. Dickson, Jr., appeals from a final judgment in favor of the defendant, U-J Chevrolet Company, entered after an ore tenus non-jury hearing in an action for revocation of acceptance under the Uniform Commercial Code. We affirm.
The trial judge, Robert L. Byrd, Jr., stated the facts as follows in his order:
The issue presented for our review is whether the trial court's findings of fact are so clearly and palpably wrong or without supporting evidence that they should be reversed. Silverman v. Charmac, Inc., 414 So.2d 892, 894 (Ala.1982).
The trial court properly found acceptance of the truck by Dickson. Under § 7-2-606, Code of Alabama 1975, acceptance occurs when the buyer:
The evidence shows that Dickson used the truck in January 1981, and that he put over 800 miles on the truck. In fact, Dickson continued to use the truck while waiting for the new spring assembly to arrive. Thus, acceptance of the truck by Dickson was clearly shown. Rozmus v. Thompson Lincoln-Mercury Co., 209 Pa.Super. 120, 224 A.2d 782 (1966); Woods v. Van Wallis Trailer Sales Co., 77 N.M. 121, 419 P.2d 964 (1967).
Because the trial court found that Dickson accepted,...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
American Honda Motor Co., Inc. v. Boyd
...we have recognized that a right to cure exists when revocation of acceptance occurs under § 7-2-608(1)(a); Dickson v. U-J Chevrolet Company, Inc., 454 So.2d 964 (Ala.1984); Gigandet v. Third National Bank of Nashville, Tenn., 333 So.2d 557 (Ala.1976). There appears to be a split of opinion,......
-
Ex parte Stem
...permissibly could have considered Stem's use of the car as evidence that its value was not substantially impaired, Dickson v. U-J Chevrolet Co., 454 So.2d 964, 967 (Ala.1984), it was not compelled to do so. Accordingly, the trial court could have determined that the automobile's nonconformi......
-
Rhodes v. General Motors Corp., Chevrolet Div.
...in support of their breach of warranty claim. See, Belcher v. Versatile Farm Equipment Co., 443 So.2d 912 (Ala.1983); Dickson v. U-J Chevrolet Co., 454 So.2d 964 (Ala.1984). Accordingly, as to the count alleging a breach of the express warranty, the summary judgment in favor of General Moto......
-
Glennville Elevators, Inc. v. Beard, 0388
...(E.D.Mich.1977). Whether there is a substantial impairment of the value of the whole contract is a question of fact, Dickson v. U-J Chevrolet Co., 454 So.2d 964 (Ala.1984); Cherwell-Ralli, Inc. v. Rytman Grain Co., Inc., 180 Conn. 714, 433 A.2d 984 (1980), that depends upon the facts and ci......