Performance Motors, Inc. v. Allen, 84

Decision Date28 January 1972
Docket NumberNo. 84,84
Citation186 S.E.2d 161,280 N.C. 385
CourtNorth Carolina Supreme Court
Parties, 10 UCC Rep.Serv. 568 PERFORMANCE MOTORS, INCORPORATED v. Alva Jane Riggs ALLEN.

Brock & Gerrans by Donald P. Brock, Trenton, for defendant appellant.

Darris W. Koonce, Trenton, for plaintiff appellee.

HUSKINS, Justice:

The security agreement signed by defendant contains the following language as part of the 'provisions' printed on the reverse side of the instrument itself: 'Buyer further warrants and covenants that: 1. The Buyer admits, upon examination, that the Collateral is as represented by Seller and acknowledges acceptance and delivery thereof in good condition and repair.' Plaintiff contends the security agreement was intended by the parties as a final expression of their agreement and that the quoted language constitutes a waiver by defendant of all warranties and renders incompetent her testimony with respect to the defective condition of the mobile home after it was installed on defendant's lot. Admission of her testimony is assigned as error.

Plaintiff's position on this point is unsound. Obviously, the security agreement was signed by defendant at plaintiff's place of business Before the mobile home was delivered and installed. In light of that fact, the buyer at that time could not acknowledge 'delivery thereof in good condition and repair.' As a part of the contract of sale, plaintiff agreed to deliver the mobile home 'and block it up on her lot.' Until that was done plaintiff's obligations under the contract remained unfulfilled. Defendant's testimony was competent, not to contradict the terms of a writen contract, but as evidence of additional consistent terms of the sale. 'Terms with respect to which the confirmatory memoranda of the parties agree or which are otherwise set forth in a writing intended by the parties as a final expression of their agreement with respect to such terms as are included therein may not be contradicted by evidence of any prior agreement or of a contemporaneous oral agreement but may be explained or supplemented . . . (b) by evidence of consistent additional terms unless the court finds the writing to have been intended also as a complete and exclusive statement of the terms of the agreement.' G.S. § 25--2--202. Here, the evidence of both parties shows that the mobile home was to be delivered and set up on defendant's lot. Hence the security agreement was not intended 'as a complete and exclusive statement of the terms of the agreement.' This assignment is overruled.

Plaintiff's allegation of the sale and delivery of the mobile home at the agreed price, and defendant's admission that she purchased the goods, executed the note and security agreement, and refused to pay a portion of the purchase price agreed upon, makes out a prima facie case entitling plaintiff to go to the jury and, Nothing else appearing, to recover the balance due on the note. Joyce v. Sell, 233 N.C. 585, 64 S.E.2d 837 (1951). 'The obligation of the seller is to transfer and deliver and that of the buyer is to accept and pay in accordance with the contract.' G.S. § 25--2--301.

Here, to negate her obligation to pay the balance due on the note, defendant alleges (1) fraudulent representations inducing the purchase, (2) breach of express warranty, (3) breach of implied warranty of fitness, and (4) rescission of the contract due to plaintiff's breach of the warranties. We now examine her degree of success in proving these allegations.

There is no evidence of fraud, and the evidence is insufficient to show an express warranty by the seller. The only evidence in this respect is defendant's testimony that 'the trailer was supposed to last a lifetime and be in perfect condition.' A seller's language to that effect, if used in negotiating a sale, is ordinarily regarded as an expression of opinion in 'the puffing of his wares,' and does not create an express warranty. G.S. § 25--2--313(2); Hollenbeck v. Ramset Fasteners Co., 267 N.C. 401, 148 S.E.2d 287 (1966). Our prior decisions are in accord with the current provisions of the Uniform Commercial Code with respect to the creation of express warranties. G.S. § 25--2--313; Wrenn v. Morgan, 148 N.C. 101, 61 S.E. 641 (1908); Swift & Co. v. Aydlett, 192 N.C. 330, 135 S.E. 141 (1926); Potter v. National Supply Co., 230 N.C. 1, 51 S.E.2d 908 (1949).

The ordinary purpose for which a mobile home is used is residential. Here, the mobile home was sold and purchased for that purpose. 'Unless excluded or modified (§ 25--2--316), a warranty that the goods shall be merchantable is implied in a contract for their sale if the seller is a merchant with respect to goods of that kind. . . . (2) Goods to be merchantable must be at least such as . . . (c) are fit for the ordinary purposes for which such goods are used. . . .' G.S. § 25--2--314(1), (2). Plaintiff is a merchant with respect to the sale of mobile homes, and the security agreement executed by defendant contains no language, as permitted by G.S. § 25--2--316, excluding or modifying the implied warranty of merchantability. Hence, the sale under discussion carried with it an implied warranty that the mobile home was fit for the purpose for which such goods are ordinarily used, I.e., residential purposes. The Uniform Commercial Code in this respect accords with prior decisions of this Court on the subject. Aldridge Motors, Inc. v. Alexander, 217 N.C. 750, 9 S.E.2d 469 (1940); Swift & Co. v. Aydlett, supra; Swift & Co. v. Etheridge, 190 N.C. 162, 129 S.E. 453 (1925); Continental Jewelry Co. v. Stanfield, 183 N.C. 10, 110 S.E. 585 (1922); Ashford v. H. C. Shrader, 167 N.C. 45, 83 S.E. 29 (1914); Dr. Shoop Family Medicine Co. v. Davenport, 163 N.C. 294, 79 S.E. 602 (1913).

While there is no implied warranty when the buyer, before entering into the contract, examines the goods as fully as he desires, G.S. § 25--2--316(3)(b), and has knowledge equal to that of the seller, Driver v. Snow, 245 N.C. 223, 95 S.E.2d 519 (1956), this principle is not applicable to the facts here because the contract of sale imposed on the seller the obligation to deliver the mobile home and 'block it up' on defendant's lot. Until that was properly done, fitness or unfitness for use as a home could not be ascertained by the buyer's examination and inspection of the goods on the seller's premises. Unless otherwise agreed, '(w)hen the seller is required . . . to send the goods to the buyer, the inspection may be after their arrival,' G.S. § 25--2--513(1); and the buyer is entitled to a reasonable time after the goods arrive at their destination in which to inspect them and to reject them if they do not comply with the contract. Parker v. Fenwick, 138 N.C. 209, 50 S.E. 627 (1905). Moreover, defendant's down payment would not impair her right to inspect following delivery. G.S. § 25--2--512(2). Here, delivery was not accomplished until plaintiff 'blocked it up' on defendant's lot. Plaintiff could have cured the defects which rendered the mobile home unfit for the use for which it was sold by repairing the defective product it delivered, G.S. § 25--2--508, but it failed to do so. For these reasons plaintiff may not now contend that defendant's inspection of the mobile home at plaintiff's place of business destroyed the implied warranty of fitness imposed by law upon the sale.

What remedies are available to defendant for breach of implied warranty of fitness? The answer to this question turns on whether defendant Accepted the mobile home. This requires consideration of the Uniform Commercial Code's concept of rejection, acceptance, and revocation of acceptance.

Acceptance is ordinarily signified by language or conduct of the buyer that he will take the goods, but this does not necessarily indicate that the goods conform to the contract. G.S. § 25--2--606(1)(a). Acceptance may also occur by failure of the buyer 'to make an effective rejection' after a reasonable opportunity to inspect. G.S. § 25--2--606(1)(b). Effective rejection means (1) rejection within a reasonable time after delivery or tender and (2) seasonable notice to the seller. G.S. § 25--2--602. Acceptance precludes rejection of the goods accepted and, if made with knowledge of a nonconformity, cannot be revoked because of it unless the acceptance was on the reasonable assumption that the nonconformity would be seasonably cured. G.S. § 25--2--607(2). Thus, the buyer may Revoke his acceptance if (1) 'the acceptance was on the reasonable assumption that the nonconformity would be seasonably cured,' G.S. § 25--2--607(2), and (2) the nonconformity substantially impairs the value of the goods. G.S. § 25--2--608(1). Revocation of acceptance must be made within a reasonable time after the buyer discovers, or should have discovered, the ground for it, Hajoca Corp. v. Brooks, 249 N.C. 10, 105 S.E.2d 123 (1958), and it is not effective until the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
46 cases
  • Hauter v. Zogarts
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • April 28, 1975
    ...imported olive oil'); Alexander v. Stone (1916) 29 Cal.App. 488, 156 P. 998 (goods 'first class'); see also, Performance Motors, Inc. v. Allen (1972) 280 N.C. 385, 186 S.E.2d 161 (mobile home would 'last a lifetime'); Jacquot v. Wm. Filene's Sons Co. (1958) 337 Mass. 312, 149 N.E.2d 635 (ar......
  • Tralon Corp. v. Cedarapids, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa
    • May 20, 1997
    ...3 (1977), are in "good shape," Guess v. Lorenz, 612 S.W.2d 831 (Mo.Ct.App.1981), or will "last a lifetime," Performance Motors, Inc. v. Allen, 280 N.C. 385, 186 S.E.2d 161 (1972), are generally regarded as expressions of the seller's opinion or "puffing" and do not create an express 20. Ced......
  • Clean Burn Fuels, LLC v. Purdue Bioenergy, LLC (In re Clean Burn Fuels, LLC)
    • United States
    • U.S. Bankruptcy Court — Middle District of North Carolina
    • May 16, 2013
    ...of sale specifies delivery terms, the “delivery” is not accomplished until those terms are satisfied. Performance Motors v. Allen, 280 N.C. 385, 395, 186 S.E.2d 161, 167 (1972) (defining delivery in the context of a sale under the U.C.C.). Section 7 of the Feedstock Supply Agreement states ......
  • City Nat. Bank of Charleston v. Wells
    • United States
    • West Virginia Supreme Court
    • August 2, 1989
    ...130 Ariz. 596, 638 P.2d 210 (1981); International Paper Co. v. Farrar, 102 N.M. 739, 700 P.2d 642 (1985); Performance Motors, Inc. v. Allen, 280 N.C. 385, 186 S.E.2d 161 (1972); McGinnis v. Wentworth Chevrolet Co., 295 Or. 494, 668 P.2d 365 (1983); Murray v. Holiday Rambler, Inc., 83 Wis.2d......
  • 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