Grossman v. Johnson
| Decision Date | 21 September 1955 |
| Docket Number | No. 35,35 |
| Citation | 89 S.E.2d 141,242 N.C. 571 |
| Parties | Lester GROSSMAN, t/a Lester Grossman Company, v. M. J. JOHNSON, Individually, and M. J. Johnson and Doris Johnson, t/a Colonial Motor Court, and Doris Johnson, Individually. |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Robert B. Lowry, Elizabeth City, Gerald F. White, for appellee.
J. T. Chaffin, Elizabeth City, for appellants.
This appeal requires an answer to these questions: 1. Did the court below commit prejudicial error by entering on its own motion a judgment as of nonsuit on the defendants' counterclaim? 2. Did the court err in giving peremptory instruction on the issue submitted?
The defendants alleged in their counterclaim that the '29 Simmons Simfoam mattresses and box springs were at the time of delivery to the defendants of the value of $14.65, or some other nominal sum; that they would have been of the value of $1,406.50 if they had answered to said warranty.'
The correct rule as to the measure of damages for breach of warranty of personal property is the difference in the market value at the time and place of delivery, between the goods as they were and as they would have been if they had complied with the warranty, with such special damages as were within the contemplation of the parties. Cable Co. v. Macon, 153 N.C. 150, 69 S.E. 14; Underwood v. Coburn Motor Car Co., 166 N.C. 458, 82 S.E. 855; Harris v. Canady, 236 N.C. 613, 73 S.E.2d 559; Hendrix v. B. & L. Motors, Inc., 241 N.C. 644, 86 S.E.2d 448. But, where there is no evidence as to the value of the goods at the time and place of delivery, the purchase price will be regarded as the actual value. Cable Co. v. Macon, supra; 35 Cyc., page 648; 55 C.J., Sales, section 844, page 856; 77 C.J.S., Sales, § 367, p. 1305.
It is not necessary for us to consider or discuss the question of special damages since no such damages were alleged.
In the trial below, the defendants offered no evidence whatever as to the difference between the reasonable market value of the mattresses as warranted (if it be conceded they were warranted), and as delivered. Therefore, the court had no alternative other than to regard the purchase price of the goods sold and delivered as the true value thereof. Hence, in our opinion, the judgment as of nonsuit on the defendants' counterclaim should be upheld.
The defendants also except to and assign as error the instruction given to the jury on the issue submitted, which was as follows: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Jones v. Callahan
-
K & C, Inc. v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp.
... ... prima facie the value that the goods would have had if they ... had been as warranted. 77 C.J.S. Sales § 376b; ... Grossman v. Johnson, 242 N.C. 571, 89 S.E.2d 141 ... (1955); Holz v. Coates Motor Company, 206 Va. 894, ... 147 S.E.2d 152 (1966). However, it is possible ... ...
-
K & C, Inc. v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp.
...price is prima facie the value that the goods would have had if they had been as warranted. 77 C.J.S. Sales § 376b; Grossman v. Johnson, 242 N.C. 571, 89 S.E.2d 141 (1955); Holz v. Coates Motor Company, 206 Va. 894, 147 S.E.2d 152 (1966). However, it is possible that the purchaser made a go......
- State v. Mills, 3