Lindberg v. Coutches
| Decision Date | 02 February 1959 |
| Citation | 167 Cal.App.2d Supp. 828,334 P.2d 701 |
| Parties | 167 Cal.App.2d Supp. 828 Carl D. LINDBERG, Respondent, v. Michael COUTCHES, Appellant. Civ. 262. Appellate Department, Superior Court, Alameda County, California |
| Court | California Superior Court |
Purchio & Fairwell, Hayward, J. W. Morony, Chico, for appellant.
Paul N. McCloskey, Jr., Palo Alto, for respondent.
This appeal comes before the court on an agreed statement of facts after judgment in favor of plaintiff in an action for breach of warranty arising out of the sale of a used 'Cessna 195' aircraft in which damages in the sum of $1,200.73 were awarded against defendant. The amount of damages is not an issue here. The defendant appeals, contending that the sale was made without warranty, express or implied.
On April 20, 1957, while engaged in the business of selling aircraft, appellant agreed in writing to sell to respondent a certain 'Cessna 195' aircraft for $7,150. A printed clause in the contract provided----
'It is agreed that the aircraft herein sold is sold as is, where is, unless otherwise specified.'
A handwritten insertion in the contract, under the term 'Remarks' provided 'Deposit subject to financial approval and mechanical approval.'
Prior to the execution of the contract, respondent made known to appellant that he proposed to use the aircraft immediately in the aerial photography business. Respondent and appellant made a short test flight in the aircraft before respondent took delivery. Appellant made no statement of any kind to indicate that the aircraft was in any way unfit for respondent's proposed use.
Respondent did not accept delivery of the aircraft until he had employed Mr. Skid Meissner, a duly licensed CAA mechanic and inspector to give the aircraft a 100-hour check and complete mechanical examination. After correcting several minor defects he certified the aircraft to be merchantable and airworthy under CAA regulations. Mr. Meissner, stipulated to be an expert on aircraft mechanics, testified that prior to the time of sale and his examination, a piece of shim stock had been inserted between the crank shaft and oil-retaining enclosing sleeve; that such piece of shim stock concealed a worn area in the crank shaft and further kept a serious oil leakage problem from becoming apparent upon any reasonable investigation; that such shim stock could only be discovered upon a major overhaul of the aircraft; that this condition made the aircraft both unmerchantable and non-airworthy under existing CAA rules.
It was Mr. Meissner's expert opinion that the shim stock had been inserted at some time prior to appellant's acquisition of the aircraft. The appellant testified that he did not know of the presence of the shim stock. He had purchased the aircraft for $6,850 the previous month from Vesta Aircraft, a used aircraft sales organization. Appellant then advertised the aircraft for sale at a price of $8,450, believing it had flown approximately 200 hours since its last major overhaul.
After commencing negotiations with respondent, the arrival of the aircraft's log books from Vesta Aircraft showed that 560 hours flying time had been put on the engine since its last major overhaul. The testimony indicated that major overhaul on an engine of this type was required between 800 and 1,000 hours. Because of this disclosure, appellant reduced the sales price to respondent to $7,150, the figure inserted in the written contract.
After taking delivery of the aircraft, respondent entered into certain commitments for its use in aerial photography. During the month of June, 1957, increased oil leakage caused respondent to submit the aircraft for further examination after flying it only 25 hours. After several attempts, Mr. Meissner discovered the shim stock and immediately grounded the aircraft.
Appellant's first contention is that there was no express warranty connected with this sale. Respondent makes no issue of this. He relies exclusively on an implied warranty arising under subdivision 1 of section 1735 of the Civil Code.
Appellant contends that no such implied warranty arises because there was no representation made by seller and relied upon by buyer, and furthermore, the terms of the agreement of sale disclaimed warranty.
The implied warranty that the goods shall be reasonably fit for buyer's particular purpose exists only 'where the buyer, expressly or by implication, makes known to the seller the particular purpose for which the goods are required, and it appears that the buyer relies on the seller's skill or judgment.' Subdivision 1, Section 1735, Civil Code. By advertising and offering a used 'Cessna 195' aircraft for sale without indicating any inability to sustain flight, appellant impliedly represented that it was reasonably fit for the purpose for which it is intended, namely, sustained flight.
The 1948 Edition of Williston on Sales (), states:
'* * * the seller by the very act of offering his goods for sale, asserts or represents that they are merchantable articles of their kind or are fit for some special purpose and that the buyer relies upon this implied assertion or representation.'
Section 1735 of the Civil Code is a part of the Uniform Sales Act as adopted in California and it extends the warranty of fitness for its intended use to used articles as well as new articles. Drumar Mining Co. v. Morris Ravine Mining Co., 33 Cal.App.2d 492, 92 P.2d 424; 1 Williston on Sales, 575 (Section 232); 43 Cal.Jur. 2nd, 263.
Appellant claims that the use of the trade name 'Cessna 195' in the agreement of sale negates warranty under subdivision 4 of section 1735 of the Civil Code. This subdivision provides that
'In the case of a contract to sell or a sale of a specified article under its patent or other trade name, there is no implied warranty as to its fitness for any particular purpose.'
There is nothing in the agreed statement of facts that indicates that this aircraft was ordered by its trade name, or that the buyer was seeking a 'Cessna 195'. On the other hand it does appear that appellant had this used aircraft and offered it for sale. That after negotiation the parties reduced their bargain to writing and the use of the trade name 'Cessna 195' was merely a manner of designating the article sold. Mere description of an article by its trade name is not conclusive, if other conditions justify a finding of the existence of an implied warranty of fitness. Bagley v. International Harvester Co., 91 Cal.App.2d 922, 206 P.2d 43.
It cannot be successfully contended that respondent did not rely on appellant's implied representation that the aircraft in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Vernali v. Centrella
...are material. Sperry Rand Corporation v. Industrial Supply Corporation, 337 F.2d 363, 370 (5th Cir.1964); Lindberg v. Coutches, 167 Cal.App.2d Supp. 828, 833, 334 P.2d 701 (1959). In the acceptance by the purchaser-owner of defective performance under a contract for construction of a house,......
-
Bruce v. Martin-Marietta Corp.
...49 Ohio Ops. 402, 110 N.E.2d 419, but the court held that the former owner of the vehicle had no liability." Lindberg v. Coutches, 167 Cal.App.2d Supp. 828, 334 P.2d 701 (1959) cited by Plaintiffs as involving the sale of a used airplane was an action against a dealer in used airplanes and ......
-
Products liability and commercial sales
...warranted that the airplane he sold to the buyer was fit for that purpose. Lindberg v. Coutches (1959) 167 Cal. App. 2d Supp. 828, 334 P.2d 701. §4:34 Buyer’s Reliance on Seller’s Skill or Judgment A boat buyer who had precise specifications of the type of boat he wanted to purchase, and wh......