Jeffco Fibres, Inc. v. Dario Diesel Service, Inc.

Decision Date14 April 1982
Citation13 Mass.App.Ct. 1029,433 N.E.2d 918
PartiesJEFFCO FIBRES, INC. v. DARIO DIESEL SERVICE, INC.
CourtAppeals Court of Massachusetts

Richard T. Tucker, Cambridge, for plaintiff.

David A. Talman, Worcester, for defendant.

Before GREANEY, CUTTER and SMITH, JJ.

RESCRIPT.

This action arises out of the sale of a used 1971 diesel truck by the defendant Dario Diesel Service, Inc. (Dario), to the plaintiff, Jeffco Fibres, Inc. (Jeffco). Jeffco claimed that Dario had made misrepresentations about the vehicle's condition which constituted a breach of express and implied warranties under the Uniform Commercial Code and a violation of G.L. c. 93A, §§ 2(a ) and 11. Dario counterclaimed for the cost of repairs to the truck (which it alleged were made at Jeffco's request) and for storage. The case was referred to a master, who concluded that Dario had committed a breach of express warranty in connection with the truck's sale, that the breach of warranty also constituted a violation of pertinent provisions of G.L. c. 93A, that Jeffco had properly revoked its acceptance of the vehicle (G.L. c. 106, § 2-608), and that Dario was entitled to recover the cost of certain repairs. The master's report was thereafter adopted, and a judgment entered on March 26, 1981, which (1) allowed Jeffco to return the truck, (2) awarded Jeffco $10,725.50 in actual damages for the violations of the express warranty and G.L. c. 93A, and $2,456.62 for attorney's fees under G.L. c. 93A, § 11, and (3) awarded Dario $3,620.07 on its counterclaim. Both Jeffco and Dario have appealed.

The master found that the truck, which had an odometer reading of 360,399 miles when sold, had been expressly warranted by Dario to have a new engine which had been driven 18,000 miles; that prior to delivery, Dario had made several repairs to the truck to put it into operable condition; that the truck was delivered on May 17, 1977; that shortly after delivery, Jeffco encountered serious problems and returned the truck to Dario for further repairs; that on July 6, 1977, Jeffco's owner, upon learning the cost of the repairs, informed Dario that "he didn't want the truck"; that despite this statement, additional repairs were thereafter made "at the request of Jeffco"; that by letter dated July 22, 1977, Jeffco advised Dario that it wished to return the truck because it "was not as represented to us," and desired repayment of the purchase price plus the cost of certain expenses set out in the letter; that Dario's representation about the condition of the engine was false when made, but Dario was unaware of the fact that the engine was not new until some time after Jeffco had revoked its acceptance; and that the repair costs which Dario sought to recover were unrelated either to the breach of warranty or to the deceptive act or practice.

The report is competently prepared and appears to disclose on its face all the subsidiary findings which the master had in mind and upon which he based his general findings. See Bills v. Nunno, 4 Mass.App. 279, 282-283, 346 N.E.2d 718 (1976). The exhibits were incorporated in the report and have been reproduced in the appendix. Summaries of the testimonial evidence were not requested in accordance with Superior Court Rule 49(7), as amended (1980). See Covich v. Chambers, 8 Mass.App. 740, --- - ---, Mass.App.Ct.Adv.Sh. (1979) 2345, 2346-2347, 397 N.E.2d 1115. With the case in this posture, we address Jeffco's contentions from the premise that the master's findings of fact are conclusive "unless they are mutually inconsistent, contradictory, plainly wrong or vitiated in view of the controlling law." Selectmen of Hatfield v. Garvey, 362 Mass. 821, 825, 291 N.E.2d 593 (1973). Wormstead v. Town Manager of Saugus, 366 Mass. 659, 660, 322 N.E.2d 171 (1975).

1. Jeffco contends that the master was required to find that it had revoked its acceptance of the truck on July 6, 1977, when its owner orally informed Dario's owner that "he didn't want the truck." The effect of such a finding would be to preclude Dario from recovering under its counterclaim for repairs made after that date. The master could properly have found, however, that the revocation did not take place until Dario's receipt of Jeffco's letter dated July 22, 1977. There is no doubt that an effective revocation of acceptance may be accomplished by oral notice (see Performance Motors, Inc. v. Allen, 280 N.C. 385, 397, 186 S.E.2d 161 (1972) ) or by conduct which unequivocally manifests a desire to revoke the sale. See Limoli v. Accettullo, 358 Mass. 381, 384, 265 N.E.2d 92 (1970). The question of when the revocation becomes effective, however, must be dealt with in light of all the circumstances, including the testimony of the parties (see Marine Mart, Inc. v. Pearce, 252 Ark. 601, 608-609, 480 S.W.2d 133 (1972) ), the nature of the goods sold, and the course of dealing between the parties after the sale and prior to the rejection. See White & Summers, Uniform Commercial Code § 8-3, at 301 (2d ed. 1972). Jeffco had the burden of establishing the breach of warranty and proving the date upon which it revoked its acceptance. See Axion Corp. v. G.D.C. Leasing Corp., 359 Mass. 474, 479-480, 269 N.E.2d 664 (1971). It is evident from the master's findings that efforts were made to repair the truck after the conversation of July 6, and that these repairs were made at Jeffco's request. The conclusions follow that Dario was attempting to cure problems with the truck with Jeffco's assent until its receipt of the letter of July 22 and that the master viewed the purported rejection on July 6 as equivocal in light of the parties'...

To continue reading

Request your trial
12 cases
  • Fortin v. Ox-Bow Marina, Inc.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
    • August 13, 1990
    ...and whether notice of revocation was timely, are all matters to be resolved by the fact finder. Jeffco Fibres, Inc. v. Dario Diesel Serv., Inc., 13 Mass.App.Ct. 1029, 1031, 433 N.E.2d 918 (1982). See Sumner v. Fel-Air, Inc., 680 P.2d 1109, 1116-1117 (Alaska 1984); Conte v. Dwan Lincoln-Merc......
  • Canal Elec. Co. v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts
    • February 1, 1991
    ...Linthicum v. Archambault, 379 Mass. 381, 387, 398 N.E.2d 482 (1979) (house repairs); Jeffco Fibres, Inc. v. Dario Diesel Services, Inc., 13 Mass.App.Ct. 1029, 1031, 433 N.E.2d 918 (1982) (used truck). Upon the undisputed evidence of the wholly commercial transaction between Canal and Westin......
  • Datacomm Interface, Inc. v. Computerworld, Inc.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
    • February 18, 1986
    ...the statute. Compare Linthicum v. Archambault, 379 Mass. 381, 388, 398 N.E.2d 482 (1979), and Jeffco Fibres, Inc. v. Dario Diesel Serv., Inc., 13 Mass.App.Ct. 1029, 1031, 433 N.E.2d 918 (1982). We have already said that the master's findings concerning Adelson's statements that the copy of ......
  • Delano Growers' Co-op. Winery v. Supreme Wine Co., Inc.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
    • January 21, 1985
    ... ... Jeffco Fibres, Inc. v. Dario Diesel Serv., ... Page 1074 ... ...
  • 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