Mattson v. General Motors Corp., Buick Motor Division
Decision Date | 18 March 1968 |
Docket Number | Docket No. 2504,No. 3,3 |
Citation | 157 N.W.2d 486,9 Mich.App. 473 |
Parties | Heimo A. MATTSON and Helen Mattson, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, BUICK MOTOR DIVISION, Defendant-Appellee |
Court | Court 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.
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:
* * *
'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 and, consequently,...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Chaurasia v. Gen. Motors Corp.
...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.
...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.
...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.
...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......