Rice v. Chrysler Motors Corp.

• Court: North Dakota Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: TEIGEN; STRUTZ
• Citation: Rice v. Chrysler Motors Corp., 198 N.W.2d 247 (N.D. 1972)
• Decision Date: 31 May 1972
• Docket Number: No. 8808,8808
• Parties: Rudolph S. RICE, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. CHRYSLER MOTORS CORPORATION and Valley Motor Co., Defendants and Respondents.

Page 247

198 N.W.2d 247

Rudolph S. RICE, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. CHRYSLER MOTORS CORPORATION and Valley Motor Co., Defendants and Respondents.

No. 8808.

Supreme Court of North Dakota.

May 31, 1972.

Syllabus by the Court

1. Failure of the adverse party in a summary judgment proceeding to respond by filing affidavits or other proof as required by Rule 56(e), N.D.R.Civ.P., does not authorize the entry of summary judgment against him when the proof submitted in support of the motion by the moving party indicates the presence of a genuine issue of material fact.

2. Under the Rule that summary judgment may be granted the movant if the proof submitted shows there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and he is entitled to a summary judgment as a matter of law the court will view the proof submitted in the light most favorable to the party against whom the summary judgment is sought and he will be given the benefit of all favorable inferences which can reasonably be drawn from such proofs that indicate a presence of a genuine issue of fact.

3. Where the buyer of a new automobile sold under warranty returns it to the dealer during the warranty period for the purpose of having defects corrected, it is sufficient that the buyer describe the defects of which he complains in layman's terms. It then becomes incumbent upon the dealer to find the defects and remedy them according to the terms of the warranty.

4. For reasons set forth in the opinion, we find it was improper to enter summary judgments of dismissal of plaintiff's complaint for the reason that the proofs filed do not show there is no genuine issue as to any material fact on the question of warranty coverage or the fulfillment of warranty conditions.

Stokes, Vaaler, Gillig, Warcup & Woutat, Grand Forks, and Jerome S. Rice, of Fredrikson, Byron, Colborn, Bisbee, Hansen & Perlman, Minneapolis, Minn., for plaintiff and appellant.

Nilles, Hansen, Selbo, Magill & Davies, Ltd., Fargo, for defendant and respondent Chrysler Motors Corp.

Letnes & Marshall, Grand Forks, for defendant and respondent Valley Motor Co.

TEIGEN, Judge.

The plaintiff, Rudolph S. Rice (hereinafter Rice), has appealed from two summary judgments entered in favor of the respective defendants, Chrysler Motors Corporation (hereinafter Chrysler) and Valley Motors Company (hereinafter Valley), whereby the plaintiff's complaint against the defendants in an action brought against them jointly for damages for breach of warranty, or in the alternative for a rescission, was dismissed.

On October 17, 1968, Rice purchased from Valley a new 1969 model Imperial Le-Baron 4-door hardtop Chrysler automobile equipped with a number of extras, including air-conditioning, automatic speed control, power trunk lock release, radio, power vent windows, vinyl roof, and others, at a price of $7,663.00. He submitted in trade a 1967 Imperial Chrysler for which he received a trade allowance of $3,513.00, and he paid the balance of $4,150.00 in cash.

In his complaint Rice alleges that the automobile was represented to be in firstclass working condition, suitable for the uses for which it was intended, and that the defendant Chrysler, by its literature, represented that the said automobile was a first-class luxury automobile designed for trouble-free driving with good quality and construction; that such representations were false, misleading and untrue in that the automobile, in the parlance of the trade, was a 'lemon'. Rice also alleges that Chrysler and Valley both made special limited express warranties of the vehicle as to material and workmanship. He also alleges that the automobile has given him a great deal of trouble; that it has never functioned properly; that the defects were not apparent at the time of purchase but were latent and began appearing at various times after the purchase of the automobile; that Rice has called these defects to the attention of both defendants at various times but that they have persistently refused to rectify the defects or to pay Rice for his expenses and trouble as a result thereof, although he has duly made demand upon the defendants, and each of them, to do so. Rice claims that because of the defendants' breaches of the express warranties and the implied warranties of fitness for use and merchantability, and misrepresentations, he has been greatly damaged, has been caused great inconvenience, expensive losses of time, has paid out large sums of money for which he has not been reimbursed, and has been caused embarrassment and annoyance. Thus, he alleges, he has been unable to enjoy the automobile as the first-class, luxury automobile which he purchased. Rice prays for damages in the sum of $5,000.00, or, in the alternative, for a return of the purchase money in exchange for the return to the defendant of the automobile.

Chrysler, by its answer, denied that it manufactured the automobile and affirmatively alleged it was manufactured by Chrysler Corporation and that Rice purchased the automobile under an express warranty in lieu of any warranties or conditions otherwise implied by law, including but not limited to implied warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose. It further alleged that the remedies available to Rice, under the said express warranty, are the only remedies available to him against Chrysler, and that the defendant Valley is not authorized, under the terms of the said express warranty, to assume any additional liability on the part of Chrysler. Chrysler also alleged that it has no knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the problems claimed by Rice and, in that regard, alleged that if the express warranty covers such problems, no notice of breach of warranty was given Chrysler by Rice. Chrysler also alleged that it has no knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to whether or not the claimed defects in the automobile were called to the attention of the defendant Valley, and that the first notice that the defendant Chrysler had of any of the problems was the commencement of this action.

The defendant Valley admitted Rice purchased the automobile in question from it, but denied all other allegations and alleged affirmatively that the automobile sold Rice was not guaranteed or warranted in any way except pursuant to the terms of the warranty printed on the retail order of which Rice had notice and accepted as a part of the sale.

Valley cross-claimed against Chrysler for indemnity or pro rata share by way of contribution of any amount that may be adjudged against Valley.

Chrysler answered Valley's cross-claim by a general denial.

Chrysler and Valley, separately, moved for summary judgments of dismissal. The motions were consolidated for the purpose of hearing. Summary judgment of dismissal of Rice's claim against Valley was entered on June 18, 1971. Summary judgment of dismissal of Rice's claim against Chrysler was entered on August 9, 1971. Rice has appealed from both summary judgments.

The motions for summary judgments were presented to the trial court on answers to interrogatories and the deposition of Rice. Attached as a part of the interrogatories are the manufacturer's price sheet on the automobile and the purchase order, which contains on the back thereof the conditions and uniform warranty. The purchase order is signed by Rice under the statement, 'I have read the conditions of the warranty printed on this and the reverse side of this sheet, and agree to accept them as part of this order.' Also attached is Chrysler Corporations' warranty. Because the two warranties differ slightly, we set them forth. They are as follows.

(1) Warranty contained on reverse side of the retail order:

UNIFORM WARRANTY

(Uniform Warranty of Automobile Manufacturers Association

under which Motor Vehicles are sold)

'The Manufacturer warrants each new motor vehicle manufactured by it to be free from defects in material and workmanship under normal use and service, its obligation under this warranty being limited to making good at its factory any part or parts thereof, including all equipment or trade accessories (except tires) supplied by the Car Manufacturer, which shall, within 12 months after making delivery of such original purchaser or before such vehicle has been driven 12 thousand (12,000) miles, whichever event shall first occur, be returned to it with transportation charges prepaid, and which its examination shall disclose to its satisfaction to have been thus defective; this warranty being expressly in lieu of all other warranties expressed or implied and of all other obligations or liabilities on its part, and it neither assures nor authorizes any other person to assume for it any liability in connection with the sale of its vehicles.

'This warranty shall not apply to any vehicle which shall have been repaired or altered outside of an authorized service station in any way so as, in the judgment of the Manufacturer, to affect its stability or reliability, nor which has been subject to misuse, negligence or accident.'

Dealer extends the foregoing warranty to the Purchaser regarding the car sold to the Purchaser hereunder in the same manner as if the word 'Dealer' were substituted for the word 'Manufacturer' therein; it being understood that the Dealer's obligation under this warranty is limited to making good at its place of business the defective part or parts referred to, within the warranty period, without charge for replacement labor. This warranty by the Dealer is expressly in lieu of all other warranties, expressed implied, and of all other obligations on the part of Dealer, and the Dealer neither assumes nor authorizes any other person to assume for it any liability in connection with the sale of its vehicles.

(2) Warranty contained in warranty booklet placed in the automobile:

Chrysler Corporation warrants this vehicle to the first registered owner only against defects in material and workmanship in...