Gabriel v. Jeansonne
| Decision Date | 06 April 1964 |
| Docket Number | No. 1399,1399 |
| Citation | 162 So.2d 798 |
| Parties | Peter GABRIEL v. Clemile JEANSONNE. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US |
Charles E. Cabibi, New Orleans, for plaintiff-appellant.
Reed, Reed & Reed, James M. Lockhart, Jr., New Orleans, for defendant-appellee.
Before SAMUEL, HALL and TURNER, JJ.
On December 19, 1961, the plaintiff purchased from the defendant a piece of property located in New Orleans at the corner of Felicity and Camp Streets with the improvements thereon for a total purchase price of $17,000.00. Leading up to the negotiations for this sale, the defendant pointed out certain defects in the roof of the building on the property, but none other. He told the plaintiff that the insurance company would repair the roof and make it satisfactory and usable. He mentioned no other vices or defects in the property at that time.
Shortly after the plaintiff took over the property, he discovered that there were a number of hidden defects which had been made known to the defendant by the Division of Housing Improvements of the City of New Orleans with the demand upon defendant to rectify same. These defects, which were not readily apparent on a simple inspection, consisted of defective piers under the porch, electrical defects and deficiencies, the correction of ceiling joists, correction of plumbing, stopped up traps and fittings, and other defects. The plaintiff brought this suit in quanti minoris asking for a reduction in the purchase price in the amount of $1,210.00, which he claims was necessitated as emergency repairs before the City of New Orleans would permit him to use the property. The defendant answered plaintiff's petition stating he made no representation whatsoever to plaintiff and that plaintiff viewed the premises on several occasions and was informed by the tenants living on the premises that the premises were in a terrible condition. The house was forty to fifty years old.
Unquestionably, the defects complained of were of a hidden nature and could not be discovered on simple inspection of the property. The defendant had full knowledge of the defects and failed to disclose them to plaintiff. In our opinion, this amounts to fraud on his part. The defects complained of were not such that could be discovered by a simple inspection, other than the leaky and defective roof. As to this item, however, the defendant's counsel in oral argument admitted that the defendant should pay that much as he had anticipated that the insurance would take care of it and so informed the plaintiff.
On trial of the case, the Judge found the case properly to be one for quanti minoris and allowed two of the five items itemized, which amounted to $410.50, and gave judgment accordingly. This suit falls within the provisions of the LSA-C.C. arts. 2476, 2520, 2521, 2530 and 2541, which deal with redhibition and provide substantially as follows:
'The warranty respecting the seller has two objects; the first is the buyer's peaceable possession of the thing sold, and the second is the hidden defects of the thing sold or its redhibitory vices.'
Redhibition as defined by LSA-C.C. art. 2520:
'* * * 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.'
Article 2541 states:
'Whether the defect in the thing sold be such as to render it useless and altogether unsuited to its purpose, or whether it be such as merely to diminish the value, the buyer may limit his demand to the reduction of the price.'
Under Article 2521:
'Apparent defects,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Loghry v. Capel
...v. Orr Construction Company, 109 Ga.App. 267, 136 S.E.2d 136; Nichoalds v. McGlothlin, 10 Cir., 330 F.2d 454 (1964); and Gabriel v. Jeansonne, La.App., 162 So.2d 798. A contrary view is expressed in Polson v. Martin, 228 Md. 343, 180 A.2d 295, particularly where the purchaser has equal oppo......
-
First Homestead Federal Sav. v. Dent
...v. Mercante, 186 So.2d 430 (1st Cir.1966); Hanna Investments Inc. v. Stovall, 171 So.2d 678 (La.App. 2nd Cir.1965); Gabriel v. Jeansonne, 162 So.2d 798 (La.App. 4th Cir.1964); Chaignaud v. Baden, 81 So.2d 76 (La.App. 2nd Cir.1955). The buyer may prove the existence of a redhibitory defect b......
-
Charter Co. v. Mercante, 6653
...would not have purchased the goods had he known of its vices. Hanna Investments, Inc. v. Stovall, La.App. 171 So.2d 678; Gabriel v. Jeansonne, La.App., 162 So.2d 798; Chaignaud v. Baden, La.App., 81 So.2d 76. See also LSA-C.C. Art. Regarding the alleged defective condition of the tile and c......
-
Scully v. Campo
... ... Mercante Floor Covering, 186 So.2d 430 (La.App.1st Cir., 1966); Hanna Investments, Inc. v. Stovall, 171 So.2d 678 (La.App.2nd Cir., 1965); Gabriel v. Jeansonne, 162 So.2d 798 (La.App.4th Cir., 1964). Defendant alleges that the plaintiff failed to establish the existence of a defect in the ... ...