Perlmutter v. Don's Ford, Inc.
| Decision Date | 23 October 1978 |
| Citation | 409 N.Y.S.2d 628,96 Misc.2d 719 |
| Parties | , 25 UCC Rep.Serv. 675 Charles PERLMUTTER, Plaintiff, v. DON'S FORD, INC., Defendant. |
| Court | New York City Court |
On September 12, 1973, the plaintiff purchased from the defendant a 1973 Ford Torino automobile. Included in the price was the sum of $90. for the application of rustproofing material to the new automobile. At the time of the delivery of the automobile, the plaintiff received a warranty from the manufacturer of the rustproofing material.
Pursuant to the terms of that warranty, the plaintiff returned to the defendant for a reinspection of the rustproofing on September 15, 1975. This warranty ran for a 5-year period from the date of application.
In April 1978, the plaintiff noticed that several parts of the automobile body were rusting. These areas were in the left rear door and fender, inside the trunk and the wheel wells on the right rear door. Rust also appeared on the right front door, the left front door, the left front fender and the left and right rear quarter panels. This rust started on the inside of the fenders, doors and body, where the surfaces were supposed to be rustproofed.
The plaintiff contacted the Ford Motor Company, who disclaimed. The manufacturer of the corrosionproofing sent a representative to inspect the automobile. In overhearing a conversation between a representative from the chemical company and the representative of the automobile dealer, the plaintiff learned that the rustproofing material had been improperly applied. The chemical company, therefore, refused to honor its warranty.
The plaintiff had his car inspected by another company which applies rustproofing material and discovered that many of the areas of the body that should have been covered by the rustproofing material were not so covered. It was these unprotected areas which had rusted. Testimony to this effect was presented in the trial.
The plaintiff sued in Small Claims Court for damages to repair his automobile, the cost of which is estimated to be $999.85. In court the defendant relied on the terms of the warranty and offered to refund to the plaintiff the sum of $90., which was the cost paid for the rustproofing. Under the terms of the warranty, the manufacturer "warrants and guarantees to the original owner that the metal surfaces coated with ECP Corrosion Proofing will not be structurally damaged by rust or corrosion for a period of 5 years from date of application". The manufacturer further warrants that if such damage does occur during this period, it may either repair the damaged portion free of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
J.O. Hooker & Sons, Inc. v. Roberts Cabinet Co., Inc., CA-00144-SCT
...on an interpretation of UCC § 2-102, that Article 2 does not apply to construction or service contracts. See Perlmutter v. Don's Ford, Inc., 96 Misc.2d 719, 409 N.Y.S.2d 628 (1978); Christiansen Bros., Inc. v. State, 90 Wash.2d 872, 586 P.2d 840 (1978). The present contract, however, is pro......
-
Fallsview Glatt v. Rosenfeld
...which implicates fundamental standards of liability, but more collateral matters, such as the statute of limitations (see Perlmutter v Don's Ford, 96 Misc 2d 719, 721 [Utica City Ct 1978]) or the statute of frauds (see Pecker Iron Works v Sturdy Concrete Co., 96 Misc 2d 998, 1000-1001 [Civ ......