Hendrix v. B & L Motors, Inc.

Decision Date23 March 1955
Docket NumberNo. 240,240
Citation86 S.E.2d 448,241 N.C. 644
CourtNorth Carolina Supreme Court
PartiesIvey HENDRIX v. B & L MOTORS, Inc.

Trivette, Holshouser & Mitchell, No. Wilkesboro, for plaintiff-appellee.

W. H. McElwee, Jr., No. Wilkesboro, for defendant-appellant.

BOBBITT, Justice.

The measure of the damages ordinarily recoverable for breach of warranty of personal property is the difference between the reasonable market value of the article as warranted and as delivered, with such special damages as were within 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; Kime v. Riddle, 174 N.C. 442, 93 S.E. 946; Troitino v. Goodman, 225 N.C. 406, 35 S.E.2d 277; Harris v. Canady, 236 N.C. 613, 73 S.E.2d 559. Appellant insists that plaintiff's damages, if any, should have been determined by the application of this rule to the (warranted) Hudson car.

If plaintiff had elected, after discovery of the breach of warranty, to accept and keep the Hudson car, appellant's position would be well taken; for the court applied the rule of damages applicable to an action for rescission. On the issue of damages, the court's instruction was that the burden of proof was on plaintiff to satisfy the jury from the evidence and by its greater weight as to the reasonable market value of the Buick when delivered by plaintiff to defendant on 16 December, 1953; that, after the jury had determined this amount, they would subtract $200 therefrom; and that the remainder would be the measure of plaintiff's loss and their answer to the issue. In so doing, we think the court analyzed correctly the complaint and evidence; and that the plaintiff's action was to rescind the transaction of 16 December, 1953, on account of breach of warranty, and to recover the consideration paid by plaintiff to defendant.

True, plaintiff did not allege in express terms that he was entitled to recover the Buick. Nor did he allege in express terms that the purpose of his action was to rescind the transaction of 16 December, 1953. Defendant had sold the Buick on 11 January, 1954. This action was commenced 18 March, 1954. Therefore, upon rescission of the transaction of 16 December, 1953, plaintiff could not recover the Buick but only the value thereof. The amount of damages alleged was $845, the exact amount plaintiff alleged was the valuation placed upon his equity in the Buick in the transaction of 16 December, 1953. There is allegation and supporting evidence that, upon discovery of the defective condition of the Hudson, plaintiff endeavored to get defendant to return the Buick to plaintiff and to take back the Hudson but that defendant refused to do so. Plaintiff's evidence tends to show that in so doing plaintiff offered 'to pay all costs of transferring title, whatever he was out * * *'.

Where the basis of the plaintiff's action is breach of warranty, may a buyer, at his election, and in the absence of fraud, maintain an action for rescission? The answer is 'Yes,' unless he is barred by retention and use, after he discovers or has reasonable opportunity to discover the defect, or other ground recognized as a defense to such action.

Before the Uniform Sales Act, the majority common-law view, based on English precedents, denied any right on the part of the buyer, in the absence of fraud, to rescind for breach of a warranty as to quality. North Carolina was regarded as one of a minority of jurisdictions which upheld the right of rescission in case of express and implied warranties, although unaccompanied by fraud. 46 Am.Jur. 886, Sales, sec. 758. The writer of this text cites Baker v. Brem, 103 N.C. 72, 9 S.E. 629, 4 L.R.A. 370, and W. F. Main Co. v. Field, 144 N.C. 307, 56 S.E. 943, 11 L.R.A.,N.S., 245, 119 Am.St.Rep. 956, as indicative of the rule recognized in North Carolina.

Since the wide adoption of the Uniform Sales Act, there is no longer a serious division of authority. Williston on Sales, Rev.Ed., sec. 608a. Section 69 thereof provides that a buyer may, at his election, rescind the contract for breach of warranty. While the Uniform Sales Act has not been adopted by our General Assembly, other jurisdictions, by reason of its provisions, are now largely in accord with the North Carolina view on the subject under consideration.

Furches, J., in a comprehensive statement of a buyer's rights upon breach of warranty by the seller, says: 'The purchaser is not compelled in all cases to reject the property, at once, upon its receipt. If it is machinery, he has a reasonable time to operate the machinery for the purpose of testing it. But when this is done, and it is found that the machine or the machinery does not fill the specifications of the contract and warranty, he must then abandon the contract and refuse to accept and use the property; and if he does not do this, but continues the possession and use of the property, he will be deemed in law to have accepted the property, and his relief then will be an action for damages upon the breach of warranty. 2 Benjamin on Sales, p. 1147.' Huyett & Smith Manufacturing Co. v. Gray, 124 N.C. 322, 32 S.E. 718, 719. In the case cited, the buyer did not undertake to rescind. He kept and used the machinery involved and resisted the seller's action to recover possession thereof. Hence, the quoted excerpt may be regarded as dicta. Even so, it is in accord with North Carolina decisions.

When a sale is made of an article with knowledge of the use for which it is intended, and the article is wholly unfit for such use, the right of the purchaser to rescind and to recover the consideration paid has been recognized by this Court. Aldridge Motors, Inc., v. Alexander, 217 N.C. 750, 9 S.E.2d 469; Poole v. Pinehurst, Inc., 215 N.C. 667, 2 S.E.2d 871; Williams v. Dixie Chevrolet Co., 209 N.C. 29, 182 S.E. 719, and cases cited. While emphasis is placed upon the concept of total failure of consideration, it would seem that in essence such action is to rescind for breach of implied warranty, McConnell v. Jones, 228 N.C. 218, 44 S.E.2d 876; Ashford v. H.C. Shrader Co., 167 N.C. 45, 83 S.E. 29; Williston on Sales, Rev.Ed., sec. 239.

In Turner v. C. C. Disher Chevrolet Co., 209 N.C. 587, 183 S.E. 742, the record discloses the following facts. The plaintiff purchased a LaSalle from defendant. As purchase price, he delivered to defendant a Chevrolet valued at $107.50. In addition he paid $54 as installments on title retention contract held by defendant for balance of purchase price. He paid also a title fee of $1.50. The LaSalle was damaged in collision. It was taken to defendant's place of business where repairs were made. The plaintiff offered to pay $50 on the repair bill. The defendant demanded $100. Upon refusal of plaintiff to meet such demand the defendant retained possession of the LaSalle. Plaintiff brought and...

To continue reading

Request your trial
14 cases
  • Performance Motors, Inc. v. Allen, 84
    • United States
    • North Carolina Supreme Court
    • January 28, 1972
    ...damages and such consequential damages as were within the contemplation of the parties. G.S. § 25--2--715; Hendrix v. B & L Motors, Inc., 241 N.C. 644, 86 S.E.2d 448 (1955); Harris v. Canady, 236 N.C. 613, 73 S.E.2d 559 Here, defendant's evidence is insufficient to support a finding that sh......
  • Bob Anderson Pontiac, Inc. v. Davidson
    • United States
    • Indiana Appellate Court
    • March 7, 1973
    ...293 N.E.2d 232 ... 155 Ind.App. 395, 12 UCC Rep.Serv. 248 ... BOB ANDERSON PONTIAC, INC., and General Motors Acceptance ... Corporation, Defendants-Appellants, ... Emery DAVISON, Plaintiff-Appellee ... No. 3--972A56 ... Court of Appeals of Indiana. Third ... Hendrix v. B & L Motors, Inc., 241 N.C ... 644, 86 S.E.2d 448 (1955); Harris v. Canady, 236 N.C. 613, 73 S.E.2d 559 (1952).' ...         [155 ... ...
  • Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Don Allen Chevrolet Co., 245
    • United States
    • North Carolina Supreme Court
    • November 2, 1960
    ...use of the article of personal property after he discovers or has reasonable opportunity to discover the defect. Hendrix v. B & L Motors, Inc., 241 N.C. 644, 86 S.E.2d 448. Here, it is alleged the buyer discovered said defects immediately after receiving the car on January 15, 1957, but ret......
  • Lilley v. Manning Motor Co., 25
    • United States
    • North Carolina Supreme Court
    • September 23, 1964
    ...an action for damages for breach of the warranty. Hajoca Corporation v. Brooks, 249 N.C. 10, 105 S.E.2d 123; Hendrix v. B & L Motors, Inc., 241 N.C. 644, 86 S.E.2d 448; Potter v. National Supply Co., 230 N.C. 1, 51 S.E.2d 908; Huyett & Smith Mfg. Co. v. Gray, 124 N.C. 322, 32 S.E. 718. It i......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT