Jacobs v. Metro Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc., CHRYSLER-PLYMOUT

Decision Date14 January 1972
Docket NumberNo. 1,INC,CHRYSLER-PLYMOUT,Nos. 46648,46691,s. 46648,1
Citation125 Ga.App. 462,188 S.E.2d 250
Parties, 10 UCC Rep.Serv. 771 C. J. JACOBS v. METRO, et al. METRO, et al. v. C. J. JACOBS
CourtGeorgia Court of Appeals

Syllabus by the Court

1. Where in a standard form new car warranty the manufacturer and dealer expressly disclaim all warranties of merchantability and fitness for the purpose intended, and all other warranties except that 'any part of this vehicle found defective under this warranty will be repaired or replaced' and further stipulate that 'the remedies under this warranty shall be the only remedies available to the owner,' such warranty, construed in connection with applicable provisions of the Uniform Commercial Code, requires that the defect must first be called to the attention of, and opportunity to repair or replace given to, the entities designated in the warranty, but it does not mean that upon the refusal of the seller to repair or replace after his duty arises under the terms of the instrument the owner can in no event revoke his acceptance of the vehicle under the provisions of Code Ann. § 109A-2-608. A verdict in favor of the defendant was not demanded.

2. Where the purchaser properly revokes acceptance upon timely discovery of a defect after calling such defect to the attention of the seller, which latter breaches its warranty by refusal to repair, and the purchaser returns the property to the seller and thereafter sues for recovery of the purchase price, it is error, after instructing the jury that if they find for the plaintiff they must find in an amount equal to the purchase price, to further instruct them that the buyer may recover the full price paid only upon proof that the property was totally worthless, since such recovery may be had upon proof that its value to him was substantially impaired.

Appellant C. J. Jacobs purchased a 1969 Plymouth automobile from Metro Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc. in February, 1969, subject to the standard Chrysler Corporation warranty for a price of $4,600.10. In April when the car still had less than 2,000 miles of use, Jacobs' son drove it to Panama City, Florida. While there the car became inoperable. It was taken to an authorized Chrysler dealer, where the engine was torn down and crankshaft, connecting rod, bearings, gasket and spark plugs were replaced. On the way back to Atlanta the driver stopped for lunch and, while he was eating, the unattended car caught on fire in the immediate vicinity of the carburetor, doing extensive damage which included the carburetor, adjacent wires, hood and exterior of the engine. The vehicle was ultimately driven back to Atlanta and returned to the place from which it was purchased. Although the dealership had changed hands in the meantime, all persons were notified including the representative of Chrysler Corporation. Examination showed that the air filter in the carburetor was missing. Jacobs and his son testified that they had not removed the filter or breather; that they did not know when or how long it was missing, and that in the opinion of Jacobs something other than the missing air filter must have been wrong with the engine. What happened subsequently is in dispute, but Jacobs testified that after taking the car back to the place from which he purchased it he talked to both the local man and the Chrysler representative; that he was met with the response that the fire was due to the breather having been left off, a defect for which they were not responsible, and that they refused to make repairs; that he then told them if that was the case, and they were not going to fix it, that the wanted a new car or a new engine; that this was refused; that plaintiff left the car and the keys with the authorized representatives of the company, and subsequently brought this action to recover his purchase price. A verdict was returned for the defendants, and plaintiff appeals.

Hansell, Post, Brandon & Dorsey, Dent Acree, Julian B. McDonnell, Atlanta, for appellant.

Alston, Miller & Gaines, John R. Crenshaw, Atlanta, for appellees.

DEEN, Judge.

1. The automobile was sold under a warranty issued by Chrysler Corporation and by the selling dealer who delivered it to Jacobs. It provides in part: 'Chrysler Corporation warrants this vehicle (except tires) to the original purchaser only against defects in material and workmanship in normal use for 12 months or 12,000 miles of operation after the vehicle is first placed in service, whichever occurs first, from the date of sale or delivery thereto . . . Any part of this vehicle found defective under the conditions of this warranty will be repaired or replaced, at Chrysler's option, without charge at an authorized Imperial, Chrysler, Plymouth or Dodge dealership . . . This warranty is the only warranty applicable to the vehicle and is expressly in lieu of any warranties or conditions otherwise implied by law, including but not limited to implied warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose. The remedies under this warranty shall be the only remedies available to the owner of the vehicle or any other person, and neither Chrysler Corporation, Chrysler Motors Corporation, nor the authorized selling dealer assumes any other obligation or responsibility with respect to the condition of any vehicle, and neither assumes nor authorizes anyone to assume for any of them any additional liability.'

We consider first the issue made by the cross appeal, which as stated by the defendant is 'whether under the Uniform Commercial Code as adopted in Georgia plaintiff, who bought an automobile subject to and in reliance upon defendants' express written warranty, may avoid the limitation in said warranty as it relates to buyer's remedies in the event of a breach of warranty by the seller.' The defendant is correct in looking only to the provisions of the Uniform Commercial Code for an answer to this question, as cases dealing with rescission and with the measure of damages for breach of warranty decided prior to its adoption in 1962 are not controlling. It will therefore first be noted that the so-called New Car Warranty delivered to the purchaser has as its sole purpose and effect (1) the exclusion of all implied warranties, including warranties of merchantability and suitability for the purpose intended in accordance with the provisions of Code Ann. § 109A-2-316; (2) the limitation of all express warranties to replacement of defective parts, thus warranting not the automobile itself but the separate parts which put together in a proper manner, comprise the finished vehicle, and (3) the limitation of all remedies...

To continue reading

Request your trial
35 cases
  • McDonald v. Mazda Motors of America, Inc., A04A1411.
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • August 10, 2004
    ...failures of the repair constitute a breach of the express warranty. Id. at 159, 369 S.E.2d 484; Jacobs v. Metro Chrysler-Plymouth, 125 Ga.App. 462, 465-468(1), (2), 188 S.E.2d 250 (1972); Ford Motor Co. v. Gunn, supra at 551, 181 S.E.2d 694. The repairs must be made within a reasonable amou......
  • Durfee v. Rod Baxter Imports, Inc.
    • United States
    • Minnesota Supreme Court
    • November 10, 1977
    ...within a reasonable time); Riley v. Ford Motor Co., 442 F.2d 670 (5 Cir. 1971) (repairs ineffective); Jacobs v. Metro Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc., 125 Ga.App. 462, 188 S.E.2d 250 (1972) (refusal to repair); Moore v. Howard Pontiac-American, Inc., 492 S.W.2d 227 (Tenn.App.1972) (repairs ineffect......
  • Murray v. Holiday Rambler, Inc.
    • United States
    • Wisconsin Supreme Court
    • May 2, 1978
    ...under sec. 2-608 of the UCC (sec. 402.608, Stats.). Moore v. Howard Pontiac-American, Inc., supra; Jacobs v. Metro Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc., 125 Ga.App. 462, 188 S.E.2d 250 (1972). In the present case the jury determined that the plaintiffs had cause to revoke the acceptance of the motorhome......
  • Osburn v. Bendix Home Systems, Inc.
    • United States
    • Oklahoma Supreme Court
    • June 3, 1980
    ...John Deere Industrial Equipment Co., Inc. v. Ponder, 135 Ga.App. 688, 218 S.E.2d 686, 687 (1975); Jacobs v. Metro Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc., 125 Ga.App. 462, 188 S.E.2d 250 (1972). The fact that a manufacturer in good faith attempts to repair the defect whenever requested to do so is not a fu......
  • 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