Mattson v. General Motors Corp., Buick Motor Division

Decision Date18 March 1968
Docket NumberDocket No. 2504,No. 3,3
PartiesHeimo A. MATTSON and Helen Mattson, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, BUICK MOTOR DIVISION, Defendant-Appellee
CourtCourt of Appeal of Michigan — District of US

Wisti & Jaaskelainen, Hancock, for appellants.

Messner & LaBine, Houghton, for appellee.

Before FITZGERALD, P.J., and BURNS and HOLBROOK, JJ.

BURNS, Judge.

Plaintiffs appeal from a directed verdict against their claim for special and consequential damages allegedly resulting from breaches of expressed and implied warranties.

On November 15, 1963, defendant's dealer in Hancock, Michigan, sold plaintiffs a new 1964 Buick automobile. At the time of the sale Mr. Mattson read the following new car warranty:

'Buick motor division of General Motors Corporation, as manufacturer, warrants each new motor vehicle and chassis including all equipment and accessories thereon (except tires and tubes), manufactured or supplied by Buick motor division and delivered to the original retail purchaser by an authorized Buick dealer, to be free from defects in material and workmanship under normal use and service; Buick motor division's obligation under this warranty being limited to repairing or replacing at its option any part or parts thereof which shall, within twenty-four (24) months after delivery of such vehicle or chassis to the original retail purchaser or before such vehicle or chassis has been driven twenty-four thousand (24,000) miles, whichever event shall first occur, be returned to an authorized Buick dealer at such dealer's place of business and which examination shall disclose to manufacturer's satisfaction to have been thus defective. The repair or replacement of defective parts under this warranty will be made by such dealer without charge for parts, and if made at such dealer's place of business, without charge for labor. * * *

'This warranty is expressly in lieu of any other warranties, expressed or implied, including any implied warranty of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose, and of any other obligations or liability on the part of the manufacturer, and Buick motor division neither assumes nor authorizes any other person to assume for it any other liability in connection with such motor vehicle or chassis.'

On Thursday, March 19, 1964, Mr. Mattson, his daughter and 2 other passengers, began a trip in the vehicle to East Detroit. In the vicinity of Clare, Michigan, the automobile malfunctioned and temporary repairs had to be made in order to complete the journey to East Detroit. Upon receiving instructions from defendant's public relations department on Friday, Mr. Mattson took the car to a Buick service agency in Flint. When he was informed that nothing could be done until Monday, he returned by bus to East Detroit. Since his daughter had to be back at school on Monday, Mr. Mattson and his daughter travelled to Hancock by bus on Saturday.

The next week Mr. Mattson was notified that the Buick had been repaired free of charge and could be picked up at any time. Plaintiffs, however, felt that they would have 'more trouble' with the car...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 cases
  • Chaurasia v. Gen. Motors Corp.
    • United States
    • Arizona Court of Appeals
    • October 17, 2000
    ...and the manufacturer furnished the parts and paid for the labor every time it was brought in for repair); Mattson v. General Motors Corp., 157 N.W.2d 486 (Mich. Ct. App. 1968) (upholding a directed verdict in favor of the manufacturer on the breach of express warranty claim because the evid......
  • Chaurasia v. General Motors Corp.
    • United States
    • Arizona Supreme Court
    • January 3, 2006
    ...and the manufacturer furnished the parts and paid for the labor every time it was brought in for repair); Mattson v. General Motors Corp., 9 Mich.App. 473, 157 N.W.2d 486 (1968) (upholding a directed verdict in favor of the manufacturer on the breach of express warranty claim because the ev......
  • US Fibres, Inc. v. Proctor & Schwartz, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Michigan
    • December 1, 1972
    ...the Michigan Courts would uphold the exclusion of consequential damages. See generally M.C.L.A. § 440.2719; Mattson v. General Motors Corp., 9 Mich.App. 473, 157 N.W.2d 486 (1968). It is true that under Pennsylvania law, a seller may be held liable for consequential damages even where expre......
  • Island Creek Coal Co. v. Lake Shore, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Virginia
    • May 27, 1986
    ...the Michigan Courts would uphold the exclusion of consequential damages. See generally M.C.L.A. § 440.2719; Mattson v. General Motors Corp., 9 Mich.App. 473, 157 N.W.2d 486 (1968). Thus, having previously found that the parties' contract of sale expressly excluded consequential damages, the......
  • 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