Harris v. Hunt, 4-9021
| Decision Date | 12 December 1949 |
| Docket Number | No. 4-9021,4-9021 |
| Citation | 216 Ark. 300,225 S.W.2d 15 |
| Parties | HARRIS et al. v. HUNT. |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Surrey E. Gilliam, El Dorado, for appellant.
Claude E. Love, El Dorado, for appellee.
Appellee, Hunt, brought this suit against appellants to recover $944.94 which he had paid, on the purchase price of $2544.94, on a new Reo truck. His complaint alleged that the 'truck was guaranteed by the defendants to give satisfactory service in hauling logs, which the defendants knew the truck would be used for, and for which use the defendants added special equipment and guaranteed the truck to do the job, and the truck being new, also carried the standard warranty against defects in workmanship or material, which warranty was in effect' etc., that the truck was 'built of such faulty and inferior material and of such faulty workmanship as to be worthless to plaintiff, * * *' that he complained to defendants, that they made several efforts to put the truck in condition to do the work but were unable to do so, and that he returned the truck and demanded that his money be refunded.
Appellants' answer was a general denial and by way of cross complaint sought to recover from appellee on an open account $270.22.
A jury awarded appellee $771.15, and awarded $147.48 to appellants on their cross complaint, whereupon the trial court, after deducting the $147.48, allowed appellants, entered a judgment for $623.67 in favor of appellee. This appeal is from that judgment. There was no cross appeal.
The action was based on an alleged express warranty that the truck in question would perform satisfactorily and 'do the job' for which it was purchased, and thiat it was suited for the purpose and use of hauling logs. Hunt was at the time engaged in the saw mill business.
The following factory warranty was given appellant when the truck was delivered to him:
Hunt testified:
'Well, I came by their place one afternoon, and I got to talking with Mr. Harris; and I had just bought a Studebaker truck a few days before that. While I was talking to him he got after me to sell me a Reo truck; and he said it would out-perform my Studebaker truck; and he told me what it would do, about the specifications of the truck, and how strong it was made, and what a motor it had in it. And I turned to go out on the street, and he said it had a Red Seal Continental motor in the truck; and I knew enough about that motor, that they were supposed to be a good unit. And we talked on; and I told him I could use another truck in my business, if it would do the job; and I told him: 'don't sell me something that will not work; I have to have something to work with to make the payments on it.' And he guaranteed it would do the job. * * *
* * *
'And I told him the truck wouldn't work, I could not make any money out of it, and it wouldn't work; every day I started out with it, it had failed to do the job. * * *
'
' ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Carter v. Quick, 77-186
...an express warranty of quality in unequivocal language even though the words "warrant" and "warranty" were never used. Harris v. Hunt, 216 Ark. 300, 225 S.W.2d 15; Nichols v. Lea, 216 Ark. 388, 225 S.W.2d 684; Ives v. Anderson Engine & Foundry Co., 173 Ark. 112, 292 S.W. 111; Warren v. Gran......
-
Gramling v. Baltz
...that there is sufficient evidence, when viewed most favorably to appellant, to constitute factual issues for the jury. Harris v. Hunt, 216 Ark. 300, 225 S.W.2d 15 (1949). The facts in the case at bar are distinguishable from those in Ingle v. Marked Tree Equipment Co., 244 Ark. 1166, 428 S.......
-
Nichols v. Lea
...and not dubious or equivocal.'' Ives v. Anderson Engine & Foundry Company, 173 Ark. 112, 292 S.W. 111, 113. See also, Harris v. Hunt, Ark., 225 S.W.2d 15. Appellants next contend that the court lacked jurisdiction. It appears that appellants in a number of pleadings, in each case, asserted ......
-
Earp v. Hunt
...tendency to influence Hunt to break his contract with the Oklahoma people and buy the Hammond machines sold by Earp. In Harris v. Hunt, 216 Ark. 300, 225 S.W.2d 15, the court quoted from Ives v. Anderson Engine & Foundry Co., 173 Ark. 112, 292 S.W. 111, as follows: "To constitute an express......