Rinehart v. Joe Simpkins, Inc.
| Decision Date | 19 June 1951 |
| Docket Number | No. 28080,28080 |
| Citation | 240 S.W.2d 962 |
| Parties | RINEHART v. JOE SIMPKINS, Inc. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Hinkel & Carey and Sidney L. James, all of St. Louis, for appellant.
William P. Carleton, Jones & Alexander and Philip S. Alexander, all of St. Louis, for respondent.
This is a suit for damages both actual and punitive brought by respondent as plaintiff against appellant as defendant arising out of a sale by defendant to plaintiff of a 1949 Ford automobile. A trial before the court and a jury resulted in a verdict and judgment in favor of plaintiff in the sum of $308.00 as actual damages and $500.00 as punitive damages. In due time defendant filed a motion to set aside the verdict and judgment and for a judgment in favor of defendant or in the alternative for a new trial, which was overruled and defendant duly appealed.
Plaintiff in his petition alleged that defendant, a corporation, was engaged in the general sales and service business of new and used automobiles as an authorized Ford dealer; that on June 8, 1949, plaintiff purchased from defendant a new 1949 Ford coupe for which he paid defendant the sum of $2061.70; that at and prior to the time of sale defendant represented to plaintiff that the coupe so purchased by plaintiff was a model known as a 'Club' coupe and was a brand new automobile delivered to defendant by the Ford Motor Company for resale to a retail customer; that the price paid defendant by plaintiff for said automobile was $2061.70 including the sum of $1648.80 for the automobile itself and $412.90 for optional equipment and accessories; that said sum of $1648.80 was the current delivered price for cars of this type in the St. Louis area and that said optional equipment in the amount of $412.90 had been actually furnished to 'and/or installed on said automobile.'
Plaintiff further alleged that said representations made by defendant were false and fraudulent and known by defendant to be such and were maliciously and wantonly made by defendant for the purpose of inducing plaintiff to purchase said Ford coupe and thereby defrauding him; that plaintiff relied upon such representations and purchased the said automobile as a brand new 1949 Ford 'Club' coupe on account thereof; that each of the aforesaid representations were known by defendant to be false at the time they were made to plaintiff and that in truth and in fact said 1949 Ford Coupe was not a brand new automobile delivered to defendant by the Ford Motor Company in the regular course of business but had been delivered to another Ford dealer by the Ford Motor Company three months prior to the date on which plaintiff received same and had been driven previous to said time; that said 1949 Ford coupe was not a 'Club' coupe but was a model known as a 'Business' coupe with a rear seat built in after the car left the factory; that the delivered price at the time of sale to plaintiff was $200.00 less than the price of a 'Club' coupe; that said business coupe was a 'used car' which had depreciated in value in the amount of $300.00; that the optional equipment representing values as follows was not furnished on said car, namely, a bird radiator ornament $10.00, white wall tires $50.00, and a polish job $15.00.
Plaintiff further alleged in his petition that defendant charged him $48.50 for standard Ford seat covers which was $20.50 in excess of the regular price of same; that plaintiff paid $160.00 for collision, fire and theft insurance on said automobile from June 8, 1949, to June 8, 1951; that if said automobile had been properly represented to the insurance company carrying the insurance policy the charge would have been $25.00 per year less than what plaintiff was required to pay; that in this respect defendant practiced deception on both plaintiff and the insurance carrier. Plaintiff prayed for $644.50 actual damages and $5000.00 punitive damages.
Defendant in its answer admitted its corporate existence and that it was engaged in the general sales and service business of new and used automobiles as an authorized Ford dealer and denied all the other allegations in plaintiff's petition.
Plaintiff testified that he was 27 years old; that he had served four years in the Army where he was trained as an aviation electrician; that on June 1, 1949, he went to defendant's place of business to purchase a new Ford Club Coupe; that defendant's salesman, Jerome Cataldi, told him defendant did not have any cars of that type in stock but were expecting some in, and if he would give an order on what he wanted Cataldi would call him when the car came; that about a week later Cataldi called him and told him defendant 'had a car in like I wanted and for me to come out and look at it.' At this point plaintiff testified:
Plaintiff further testified that he went out and looked at the car which Cataldi showed him; that he bought the car as a new 1949 Ford Club Coupe; that at the time of the delivery of the car he was given an envelope and was told a bill of sale and all papers necessary to get a license for the car were enclosed; that the envelope contained applications for certificate of title and licenses made out by the defendant which described the car as a 1949 Club Coupe but that there was no bill of sale.
Plaintiff introduced in evidence certain exhibits as follows:
Plaintiff's exhibit 1. A receipt for the certificate of title of the car showing the type of body to be a 'Club Coupe' which plaintiff said had been filled out by defendant.
Plaintiff's exhibit 2. A certificate of registration for making application for a license which showed the type of body of the automobile to be 'Style of body, Club Coupe.' Plaintiff stated that also was filled out by defendant.
Plaintiff's exhibit No. 3. A certificate of title which plaintiff received from Jefferson City in connection with the application for title showing the model of the car to be 'Club Coupe 1949.'
Defendant's counsel admitted that the above exhibits referred to the automobile involved herein.
Plaintiff further testified that several days later he compared the car defendant had delivered to him with a 1949 Ford Club Coupe and found that his car had only one sun visor, one dome light, no cigarette lighter, no handles on the back of the front seats and that the rear seat would not remain stationary and finally collapsed and would not bear the weight of passengers; that shortly after the sale and delivery of the car defendant mailed plaintiff a bill of sale which was introduced as plaintiff's exhibit 4, showing the price of the car to be $1648.80 without accessories and listing thereon $412.90 worth of accessories, making a total of $2061.70; that plaintiff did not receive white wall tires listed at $50.00 nor a bird radiator ornament listed at $10.00, nor a polish job listed at $15.00.
Further testimony of plaintiff was to the effect that defendant's salesman, Cataldi, told him that the price for a new Club coupe was $1697.00 but only $1449.00 for a new business coupe; that Cataldi stated these prices to him on his first visit to defendant's showroom, but that he then told Cataldi he was not interested in a business coupe; that he wanted a car to carry riders to work in.
Plaintiff also introduced in evidence interrogatories signed by V. E. Coe of Coe Motor Company of Centralia, Missouri, wherein Coe testified that the automobile in question had been received by that company from the Ford factory on March 14, 1949, as a business coupe; that it was not altered while in their possession and that it was traded to defendant for a pick-up truck on May 25, 1949.
Plaintiff also introduced in evidence interrogatories signed by B. E. Petersen, an official of the Ford Motor Company, wherein Petersen testified that the automobile in question was a Ford business coupe released by the factory to Coe Motor Company on March 14, 1949, and that the business coupe is a three passenger coupe with no seat in the rear; that it has no chrome around the windshield and back windows; that it has an auxiliary floor pan in the rear instead of a seat, back and cushion; that the instrumental panel does not contain a cigar lighter or electric clock; that the upholstery of a club coupe is a better quality than that of a business coupe.
Jerome Cataldi testified on behalf of defendant that he was the salesman who sold plaintiff the car in question; that he made out the bill of sale; that sometimes bills of sale are typewritten by defendant and sometimes not; that he took the $100.00 down payment on the sale and gave plaintiff a receipt for it. This receipt was introduced in evidence as plaintiff's exhibit 5. The witness further testified that the receipt did not state the type of car, whether new or used nor did it state the balance to be paid but merely gave the stock number of the car; that sometimes the space for a new or used car is filled in and sometimes not; that he made out the bill of sale on June 7, 1949, when the transaction was fresh in his mind and inserted the item $50.00 for white wall tires although he knew plaintiff did not want white wall tires; that defendant offered to return the money charged for the white wall tires or to give plaintiff such tires.
Frank Leber, general manager of defendant, stated that the rear windows of the car in question were sealed and the car was converted by defendant to make it more salable; that the upholstery in the rear of the car did not match that in the front; that the defendant has 75 employees including 11 salesmen and 4 office workers; that it is not customary for defendant to give the purchaser a bill of sale when he drives the car out nor to indicate thereon whether the car is new or used when a bill of sale is given; that defendant received only six business coupes in 1949 and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Simmons v. Jones
... ... Real Estate & Ins. Agency, Inc. v. Campbell, Mo.App., 353 S.W.2d 102, 107(15-17)]; and, of course, this is accomplished where ... Senter, Mo.App., 317 S.W.2d 666, 672(9). See Rinehart v. Joe Simpkins, Inc., Mo.App., 240 S.W.2d 962, 968-969(6, 7) ... However, we have ... ...
-
District Motor Co., Inc. v. Rodill
...supplied.) Jones v. West Side Buick Auto Co., 231 Mo.App. 187, 93 S.W.2d 1083, 1088, quoted with approval in Rinehart v. Joe Simpkins, Inc., Mo.App., 240 S.W.2d 962, 968. Indeed it has been said that, "If the injury was inflicted through fraud, this alone affords grounds for exemplary damag......