McGhee v. GMC Truck & Coach Division
Decision Date | 02 July 1980 |
Docket Number | Docket No. 44814 |
Citation | 98 Mich.App. 495,296 N.W.2d 286 |
Parties | , 30 UCC Rep.Serv. 121 Robert L. McGHEE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. GMC TRUCK & COACH DIVISION, a Division of General Motors, a ForeignCorporation, Defendant-Appellee. |
Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
Richard W. Kochansky, Detroit, for plaintiff-appellant.
Albert A. Miller, Detroit, for defendant-appellee.
Before DANHOF, C. J., and CYNAR and MacKENZIE, JJ.
This action arose out of the plaintiff's 1974 purchase of a used 1969 model GMC truck tractor from the defendant. The defendant had summary judgment on all counts of the complaint.
The incident that precipitated suit occurred when the plaintiff, an experienced truck driver and mechanic, attempted to remove the tractor's transmission for repair shortly after the purchase. Using the tractor's mechanism designed for the purpose, he was tilting the cab forward when it toppled from the tractor frame onto the ground, sustaining substantial damage. Subsequent inspection revealed that the cab frame had broken and been repaired some time earlier. The repairs had apparently failed before the plaintiff purchased the unit. The tractor was eventually repossessed, repaired and sold by the defendant for $7,000, $2,000 less than the price the plaintiff had paid for it.
The plaintiff claimed that he was damaged in the following particulars:
Compensatory and exemplary relief was demanded in the amount of $750,000.
Count I of the complaint alleged that defendant breached an "express warranty" created by GMC's media advertising and its salesman's statements that he had examined the unit, particularly the engine, and found it to be in "good condition". Count II, entitled "implied warranty", asserted that the plaintiff had relied on the skill of the defendant's salesman to select a unit suitable for the plaintiff's intended purpose, which was the hauling of construction debris, thus giving rise to an implied warranty of fitness. This count claims that the physical defects, including mechanical difficulties, in the tractor rendered it unfit for the plaintiff's uses. The complaint contained no reference to the documents by which the sale was made.
In response, the defendant relied on the sale documents, including a "retail order form" and an "installment sale contract". The order form, in the nature of an offer to purchase, described the tractor and set forth the price upon which the plaintiff and the salesman had agreed. It was stamped on its face with the proviso "SOLD (AS IS)" in letters approximately one-fourth inch tall. On the reverse side, "additional terms and conditions" included the following, printed in red ink:
The installment sale contract indicated that the plaintiff paid $2,000 down on the purchase and financed the balance of the price through the defendant. The reverse side of this document contained "additional terms", most printed nine lines to the inch. In boldface print seven and one-half lines to the inch, the document provided:
The defendant's motion for summary judgment on Counts I and II was based on GCR 1963, 117.2(3), claiming that there existed between the parties no genuine issue as to any material fact. By stipulation of the parties, the trial court decided the motion on the depositions of the plaintiff and the defendant's salesman, in lieu of affidavits. 1 In his deposition, the plaintiff acknowledged the execution of the documents on which the defendant relied for its defense. He testified that he had understood that no warranties were made with respect to the engine or transmission of the truck, and that he had been free to try the cab tilt mechanism when he inspected the unit at the defendant's place of business.
Warranties of merchantability and fitness for a buyer's intended use arise by implication but may be negated by contrary contractual terms meeting the requirements of M.C.L. § 440.2316(2), (3); M.S.A. § 19.2316(2), (3):
The documents that embody the agreement in this case meet the statutory requirements and therefore operate to preclude liability for breach of any implied warranty. We also observe that the plaintiff's freedom to inspect the tractor, including the tilt cab, precludes his recovery under his implied warranty claim.
The express warranty claim apparently relies on the defendant's salesman's statements that the unit was in "good condition". In the sale of a used machine to a knowledgeable buyer, this general expression of opinion cannot be held to create any express warranty.
Count IV of the complaint was entitled "fraud and deceit", and alleged that the statements and advertisements upon which the plaintiff relied for his warranty claim were known to be false and were made by the defendant in order to induce the plaintiff to purchase the tractor. Like the motion for summary judgment on Counts I and II, the defendant's motion on this count was brought under GCR 1963, 117.2(3) and relied on the depositions of the plaintiff and the salesman.
" ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Neibarger v. Universal Cooperatives, Inc.
...doctrine in appropriate cases where conflict arises from the disparate goals of tort and contract law. In McGhee v. General Motors Corp., 98 Mich.App. 495, 505, 296 N.W.2d 286 (1980), the first such decision, the Court adopted the rationale expressed in S.M. Wilson & Co. v. Smith Int'l, Inc......
-
Continental Ins. v. Page Engineering Co.
...Frey Dairy v. A.O. Smith Harvestore Products, Inc., 886 F.2d 128 (6th Cir.1989). The Michigan case, McGhee v. GMC Truck & Coach Division, 98 Mich.App. 495, 296 N.W.2d 286 (1980), did not involve or raise any issue of a duty to warn as a recovery claim. See, moreover, Mulholland v. DEC Inter......
-
Rokicsak v. Colony Marine Sales and Service, Inc.
...contractual terms meeting the requirements of M.C.L. § 440.2316(2), (3)1; M.S.A. § 19.2316(2), (3)." McGhee v. GMC Truck and Coach Div., 98 Mich.App. 495, 500, 296 N.W.2d 286 (1980). Consistent with M.C.L. § 440.2316, the Purchase Agreement disclaimed all warranties using clear and conspicu......
-
Heritage v. Caterpillar Financial
...both of these implied warranties may be excluded or disclaimed by the seller, MCL 440.2316; McGhee v. GMC Truck & Coach Div., Gen. Motors Corp., 98 Mich.App. 495, 500, 296 N.W.2d 286 (1980). Because plaintiff has not presented any evidence of the terms or conditions of the contract between ......