Hartman v. Jensen's, Inc., 21676
| Decision Date | 22 March 1982 |
| Docket Number | No. 21676,21676 |
| Citation | 277 S.C. 501,289 S.E.2d 648 |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | , 33 UCC Rep.Serv. 889 Carl M. HARTMAN and Wyetta M. Hartman, Respondents, v. JENSEN'S, INC. and Standard Coach Sales, Inc., Appellants. |
John E. Batten, III, and Andy E. Hendrick, both of Batten & Hendrick, and H. Buck Cutts, of Law Office of Dalton B. Floyd, Jr., Surfside Beach, for appellants.
Willard D. Hanna, Jr., and Frederick L. Harris, both of Joseph, Harris & Hanna, Myrtle Beach, and John P. Bacot, Jr., of Wilcox, Hardee, Palmer, O'Farrell, McLeod, Buyck & Baker, Surfside Beach, for respondents.
This is an action at law, based upon alleged negligence and breach of warranties, to recover damages for defects in a mobile home manufactured by appellant Standard Coach Sales, Inc., and sold by appellant Jensen's, Inc. The issues were, by consent, referred to a special referee to hear the evidence and report his findings of fact and conclusions at law. The report of the special referee, affirmed by the trial judge, held that appellants had breached express and implied warranties in the sale of the mobile home and awarded judgment to respondents for the damages sustained. Appeal is from that judgment.
We determine the issues under the well settled principle that, in a law case, the findings of fact, whether under proper reference to the court or a jury, are binding on this Court, if supported by any competent evidence.
Appellants attack the validity of the order of reference in this case and the amount of damages awarded below. Appellant Jensen's, Inc., also contends that its defense of agency status was improperly decided by the court on demurrer. We find that these contentions are without merit and that a full discussion of these issues would be without precedential value. Accordingly the exceptions raising these questions are dismissed under the permission of Rule 23 of the Rules of Practice of this Court.
Appellant Jensen's, Inc., also excepts to the findings that it granted any warranties, express or implied, to respondents. We need not pursue the question of whether the record sustains a finding that Jensen's, Inc., granted an express warranty; for, irrespective, the record clearly sustains the finding of an implied warranty, which is sufficient to sustain its liability.
Jensen's, Inc., was a retailer of manufactured homes and, as such retailer, it was a merchant with respect to goods of that kind. Unless excluded or modified under Section 36-2-316, South Carolina Code, 1976, there arose, under these facts, an implied warranty by Jensen's, Inc., that the mobile home sold by it to respondents was fit for the purpose...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Myrtle Beach Pipeline Corp. v. Emerson Elec. Co., No. 3:86-1796-21.
...entities are involved"), cert. granted in part, ___ U.S. ___, 113 S.Ct. 3033, 125 L.Ed.2d 721 (1993). Relying on Hartman v. Jensen's, Inc., 277 S.C. 501, 289 S.E.2d 648 (1982), Myrtle Beach contends that the disclaimer is ambiguous because the paragraph containing the disclaimer is prefaced......
-
Cate v. Dover Corp.
...of the headings indicated a making of warranties rather than a disclaimer. (Emphasis in original.) Similarly, in Hartman v. Jensen's, Inc., 277 S.C. 501, 289 S.E.2d 648 (1982), the court found that placing a disclaimer under the bold heading "Terms of Warranty" failed to alert the consumer ......
-
Dawkins v. Sell
...exceeded the bounds of the empty-chair defense?STANDARD OF REVIEW A negligence action is an action at law. Hartman v. Jensen's, Inc. , 277 S.C. 501, 502, 289 S.E.2d 648, 648 (1982). On appeal from an action at law tried by a jury, appellate courts correct errors of law and do not disturb th......
-
South Carolina Elec. and Gas Co. v. Combustion Engineering, Inc.
...a disclaimer" because the heading of the item, printed in underlined capital letters, simply reads "WARRANTY." Hartman v. Jensen's Inc., 277 S.C. 501, 503, 289 S.E.2d 648 (1982). But the question remains concerning whether a genuine issue of material fact exists as to whether the disclaimer......