Kyker v. General Motors Corp.
| Decision Date | 04 September 1964 |
| Citation | 18 McCanless 521,214 Tenn. 521,381 S.W.2d 884 |
| Parties | , 214 Tenn. 521 R. A. KYKER, Jr., by next friend R. A. Kyker, Sr., v. GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION. |
| Court | Tennessee Supreme Court |
Ogle & Ogle, Sevierville, Robert L. Ogle, Jr., Sevierville, of counsel, for petitioner.
Poore, Cox, Baker & McAuley, Knoxville, Arthur D. Byrne, Knoxville, of counsel, for respondent.
In this opinion R. A. Kyker, Jr., suing by next friend R. A. Kyker, Sr., will be referred to as petitioner, and General Motors Corporation by name.
Petitioner sued General Motors and their dealer, Sevier Motor Company, obtaining a verdict and judgment against General Motors rescinding the contract on the sale of a new automobile on the basis of a breach of warranty. The Court of Appeals (Eastern Section) has reversed this action of the Trial Court on the ground there was no privity of contract between petitioner and General Motors. We have granted certiorari.
The facts necessary to state in this opinion are as follows: Petitioner purchased a new Chevrolet automobile manufactured by General Motors, from Sevier Motor Company, an authorized dealer of the manufacturer. In connection with this sale petitioner received a written warranty covering defective workmanship and parts. The warranty, prepared and supplied by General Motors, is by its terms a warranty from the dealer, as seller, and not as agent of General Motors. It is undisputed an employee of Sevier Motor Company presented this warranty to petitioner and signed the booklet containing the warranty, among other things, as a representative of Sevier Motor Company. However, it does not appear, from the record General Motors required this warranty to be given to the petitioner.
Petitioner, soon after delivery, experienced trouble with the engine of this automobile. The difficulty was in the valves, valve push-rods and head of the engine. Due to this trouble he returned the care to Sevier Motor, on several occasions, for repairs, without success. Whereupon, petitioner, through counsel, wrote a letter to Sevier Motor seeking to rescind this sale contract, tendering the automobile and requesting a return of the purchase money. Upon refusal of Sevier Motor to accept the offer this suit was instituted.
Petitioner and General Motors and Sevier Motor Company, as principal and agent, in a three count declaration asserting joint and several liability. Each count was based on the allegation petitioner received, at the time of purchase, a defectively manufactured automobile. Relief was sought under the Uniform Sales of Goods Act (Sec. 47-1212 T.C.A.) for breach of express written warranty and/or under the statutory implied warranties of quality or fitness Act, (Sec. 47-1215 T.C.A.).
To this declaration General Motors entered a demurrer on the ground there was no privity of contract between itself and petitioner. They further alleged Sevier Motor to be an independent dealer and not an agent of General Motors. This demurrer was overruled and again asserted, on the motion for a directed verdict, but again overruled.
General Motors, upon close of all the proof, entered a motion to require petitioner to elect whether he sought rescission of the contract of sale or damages. This motion was made since petitioner sought relief under our Uniform Sales of Goods Act being Chapter 12 of Title 47, T.C.A. Under Section 47-1269 of these statutes a buyer is given the option in a warranty action to seek rescission or damages. Petitioner chose to stand on rescission. In this opinion when the Uniform Sales of Goods Act is referred to the reference is to these code sections prior to the enactment of Chapter 81 Public Acts of 1963.
The trial resulted in a verdict and judgment against General Motors. Rescission of the contract granted and petitioner awarded the purchase price, less depreciation. General Motors was awarded the automobile. Sevier Motor escaped all liability. No appeal was taken as to Sevier Motor and the judgment in their favor has become final.
Upon appeal by General Motors the Court of Appeals (Eastern Section) held the Trial Court in error for not granting the directed verdict in favor of General Motors, since under the record Sevier Motor was an independent dealer, and not an agent of General Motors. Consequently there was no privity of contract between petitioner and General Motors and there could be no recovery in warranty.
We think the decision of the Court of Appeals must be affirmed, because of two peculiar aspects of this case.
The first difficulty in this case arises from the form of relief granted petitioner when considered in relation to the party found liable. The judgment is for rescission of this sale contract which is in keeping with the election made by petitioner under our Uniform Sales Goods Act. Then for this judgment to stand we would have to hold this Act applies to General Motors under the circumstances of this case.
All the evidence is to the effect this sale was made by Sevier Motor, as an independent dealer, and not as an agent of General Motors. There is no evidence General Motors was a contracting party in this sale.
This situation stems from a misapplication of the provisions of the Uniform Sales of Goods Act which finds its genesis in the case of General Motors Corporation v. Dodson, 47 Tenn.App. 438, 338 S.W.2d 655 (1960). The facts of the Dodson case are very similar to those in the present case, it also being a suit against a manufacturer for breach of warranty. The pertinent aspect here of the decision in the Didson case is the holding the Uniform Sales of Goods Act created an implied warranty from the manufacturer to the consumer, in a situation where the manufacturer was not the plaintiff's vendor. From this holding petitioner apparently reasoned the remedies available under the Uniform Sales of Goods Act applied as well as the warranties created by the Act.
We do not think the provisions of the Uniform Sales of Goods Act were ever intended to, or should, define the rights, remedies and liabilities of a purchaser as against a manufacturer who is not his immediate vendor or a party to the contract of sale. The Uniform Sales of Goods Act is limited to delineating the principles governing the rights of the parties to the contract of sale. See Greenman v. Yuba Power Products, Inc., 59 Cal.2d 67, 377 P.2d 897 (1963), which touches this problem with special reference to the requirement of notice. Apparently that case is the first to hold that the provisions of the Uniform...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ford Motor Co. v. Lonon
...with under the Sales Act, which was in effect at the time of this transaction. In that connection, in Kyker v. General Motors Corp., 214 Tenn. 521, 381 S.W.2d 884 (1964) we held that a purchaser who elected the remedy of recision after purchasing a car from a retailer, and then sought recov......
-
Berry v. American Cyanamid Company
...before us do not support an express warranty and the theory of an implied warranty by statute was repudiated in Kyker v. General Motors Corporation, Tenn., 381 S.W.2d 884, Sept. 4, In the Kyker case, the Supreme Court of Tennessee held that the Uniform Sales of Goods Act created an implied ......
-
Salmon Rivers Sportsman Camps, Inc. v. Cessna Aircraft Co., 11637
...9, 403 P.2d 145 (Cal.1965); Oliver Corp. v. Green, 54 Tenn.App. 647, 393 S.W.2d 625 (Tenn.Ct.App.1965); Kyker v. General Motors Corp., 214 Tenn. 521, 381 S.W.2d 884 (Tenn.1964); General Motors Corp. v. Halco Instruments, Inc., 124 Ga.App. 630, 185 S.E.2d 619 (Ga.Ct.App.1971); Dudley v. Bayo......
-
Lee v. Sears Roebuck & Co.
...privity was not essential where the manufacturer had actual knowledge of the dangerous defect. Then came Kyker v. General Motors Corporation, (1964) 214 Tenn. 521, 381 S.W.2d 884. In this case, petitioner had purchased a new Chevrolet automobile from Sevier Motor Company, an authorized deal......