O'Shields v. Southern Fountain Mobile Homes, Inc., 19794
| Decision Date | 01 April 1974 |
| Docket Number | No. 19794,19794 |
| Citation | 262 S.C. 276,204 S.E.2d 50 |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | Ted K. O'SHIELDS and Patricia O'Shields, Respondents, v. SOUTHERN FOUNTAIN MOBILE HOMES, INC., Appellant. |
J. D. Todd, Jr., and O. Doyle Martin, of Leatherwood, Walker, Todd & Mann, Greenville, for appellant.
Kenneth C. Porter, Greenville, for respondents.
Respondents brought his action to recover damages resulting from alleged fraud and deceit perpetrated by appellant in the sale to them of a mobile home. The trial resulted in a verdict in favor of respondents for both actual and punitive damages. While other questions are raised, we need only consider appellant's contention that there was no evidence to establish liability for fraud and deceit and that the trial judge erred in refusing its timely motion for a directed verdict on that ground. The material facts are undisputed.
It appears that respondents, after considerable shopping among various dealers, purchased a mobile home from appellant, a dealer at Greenville, South Carolina. Since respondents desired an unfurnished home and all of those in appellant's stock were furnished, a unit meeting the specifications of respondents was ordered by appellant from the manufacturer.
The sale of the mobile home was evidenced by a written 'purchase agreement,' dated January 16, 1973, which recited a down payment of $200.00 with a balance of $5644.00 to be paid 'before delivery of the home.' The agreement also specified the make or style of the home as 'Plantation' and gave the color, number of bedrooms, the length, width, and model. In the space for 'optional equipment, labor and accessories,' it was specified that 'all furniture including built in Refer (refrigerator) and range, bar, bar light and cabinet, and shag' would be deleted; and the following additions would be made (spelling as it appears in agreement):
Respondents were told by appellant's agent that, if they were not satisfied with the trailer home when it was delivered by the manufacturer, they did not have to accept it.
The home was delivered to the sales lot of appellant in February 1973, and shortly thereafter was inspected by respondents before it was delivered to them. As the time respondents inspected the unit on appellant's lot, they noticed that it varied from that which they had ordered in four particulars, namely: (1) the ceilings were seven (7) feet instead of eight (8); (2) it did not have exposed beams in the living room; (3) there were no 'swag lights'; and (4) the hall was not carpeted. Respondents testified that the unit purchased by them was to have the foregoing items. In all other respects, the trailer home was as ordered.
Although respondents inspected the home, saw that in the foregoing particulars it was not as ordered by them, and had been told that they did not have to take the unit if they were not satisfied, they, nevertheless, paid the balance of the purchase price ($5644.00) and accepted delivery and installation of the trailer home on their lot about February 20, 1973.
Later, in April, after having occupied the home since the latter part of February, respondents received a manufacturer's certificate of origin which stated that the style or make of their mobile home was a 'Vagabond,' instead of a 'Plantation' as their purchase agreement specified. Respondents then became dissatisfied and protested, contending that they had not received what they had ordered, since a 'Vagabond' was a cheaper model than the 'Plantation.'
It developed, however, that the essential difference between the Vagabond and Plantation models was in the quality of the furnishings. The Plantation contained deluxe furnishings and the Vagabond less espensive ones.
Respondents contend that the appellant's agents fraudulently represented to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Faircloth v. Jackie Fine Arts, Inc.
...its truth; (8) the hearer's right to rely thereon; (9) the hearer's consequent and proximate injury. O'Shields v. Southern Fountain Mobile Homes, Inc., 262 S.C. 276, 204 S.E. 2d 50 (1974). 1. The Jackie/Finesod The representation which must be proved must be a representation of fact and not......
-
Aries Realty, Inc. v. AGS Columbia Associates
...truth; (8) the hearers' right to rely thereon; and (9) the hearers' consequent and proximate injury.2 O'Shields v. Southern Fountain Mobile Homes, Inc., 262 S.C. 276, 204 S.E.2d 50 (1974); King v. Oxford, 282 S.C. 307, 318 S.E.2d 125 (App.1984); Florentine Corp. v. PEDA I, Inc., 287 S.C. 38......
-
Scott v. Chrome Capital, LLC
...414, 415 (S.C. 1980). "Failure to prove any one of the foregoing elements is fatal to recovery." Id., citingO'Shields v. South Fountain Mobile Homes, Inc., 204 S.E.2d 50 (S.C. 1974). Although Plaintiff points specifically to the December 4, 2014 letter and generally to Defendant's statement......
-
Bishop Logging Co. v. John Deere Indus. Equipment Co.
...clear, cogent, and convincing evidence, that John Deere committed fraud upon Bishop Logging. See O'Shields v. Southern Fountain Mobile Homes, Inc., 262 S.C. 276, 204 S.E.2d 50 (1974) (Fraud must be proven by clear, cogent and convincing Adrian Bishop testified about a conversation he had wi......