Gregory v. Atrium Door and Window Co.
| Decision Date | 21 April 1992 |
| Docket Number | No. 9119DC468,9119DC468 |
| Citation | 415 S.E.2d 574,106 N.C.App. 142 |
| Court | North Carolina Court of Appeals |
| Parties | , 18 UCC Rep.Serv.2d 110, Prod.Liab.Rep. (CCH) P 13,331 Larry F. GREGORY and wife, Dorothy S. Gregory, Plaintiffs, v. ATRIUM DOOR AND WINDOW COMPANY, a Texas Corporation, W.R. Jones Company, a North Carolina Corporation, and James R. Burris, d/b/a James R. Burris Construction Company, Defendants. |
Thomas M. King, Salisbury, for defendant-appellant Atrium Door and Window Company.
No brief filed by defendants W.R. Jones Co. or James R. Burris, d/b/a James R. Burris Const. Co.
In its first two arguments defendant Atrium Door and Window Company contends that the trial court committed reversible error in finding that it gave plaintiffs implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose for the doors. Defendant attacks these findings as being unsupported by competent evidence. Hollerbach v. Hollerbach, 90 N.C.App. 384, 387, 368 S.E.2d 413, 415 (1988) (citations omitted).
The trial court found that "Defendant[ ] ... Atrium, in selling the windows and doors to the Plaintiffs for use in their residence, gave an implied warranty of merchantability concerning the windows and doors, and said implied warranty of merchantability was not excluded or modified by any actions of the parties." An implied warranty of merchantability (N.C.Gen.Stat. § 25-2-314 (1986)) and an implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose (G.S. § 25-2-315) are based upon contractual theory. Richard W. Cooper Agency v. Irwin Yacht and Marine Corp., 46 N.C.App. 248, 251, 264 S.E.2d 768, 770 (1980). Plaintiffs were in privity of contract with defendant-retailer W.R. Jones Company, from whom they had purchased the doors, but were not in privity of contract with defendant-manufacturer Atrium Door and Window Company.
Sharrard, McGee & Co., P.A. v. Suz's Software, Inc., 100 N.C.App. 428, 432, 396 S.E.2d 815, 817-18...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Darisse v. Nest Labs, Inc.
...v. Mainship Corp., 2006 WL 1085067, at *5 (E.D.N.Y. 2006); Hole v. General Motors Corp., 83 A.D.2d 715 (1981); Gregory v. Atrium Door & Window Co., 106 N.C. App. 142 (1992); Terry v. Double Cola Bottling Co., 263 N.C. 1 (1964); McKinney v. Bayer Corp., 744 F. Supp. 2d 733, 758 (N.D. Ohio 20......
-
Kelly v. Georgia-Pacific LLC
...S.E.2d 334, 340 (2006); Land v. Tall House Bldg. Co., 165 N.C.App. 880, 884, 602 S.E.2d 1, 4 (2004); Gregory v. Atrium Door & Window Co., 106 N.C.App. 142, 144, 415 S.E.2d 574, 575 (1992); Chicopee, Inc. v. Sims Metal Works, Inc., 98 N.C.App. 423, 431-32, 391 S.E.2d 211, 216-17 (1990). Acco......
-
City of High Point v. Suez Treatment Solutions Inc.
...Inv'rs Fund, L.P. v. Metric Constructors, Inc., 351 N.C. 331, 338, 525 S.E.2d 441, 446 (2000) ); Gregory v. Atrium Door & Window Co., 106 N.C. App. 142, 144, 415 S.E.2d 574, 576 (1992). "The rationale for this exception is that an action seeking to recover damages for economic loss is not a......
-
Curl v. Volkswagen of Am., Inc.
...Arthur Jaffee Assocs. v. Bilsco Auto Serv., Inc. (1983), 58 N.Y.2d 993, 461 N.Y.S.2d 1007, 448 N.E.2d 792; Gregory v. Atrium Door & Window Co. (1992), 106 N.C.App. 142, 415 S.E.2d 574; Price v. Gatlin (1965), 241 Or. 315, 405 P.2d 502; Messer Griesheim Indus., Inc. v. Cryotech of Kingsport,......