Studebaker Corp. v. Nail, 33198

Decision Date16 November 1950
Docket NumberNo. 1,No. 33198,33198,1
Citation82 Ga.App. 779,62 S.E.2d 198
CourtGeorgia Court of Appeals

Syllabus by the Court

1. Under the facts, the court, trying the case without a jury, correctly found that the Studebaker Corporation warranted the automobile directly to the purchaser through the dealer as its agent even though the sale was made by the dealer operating as an independent contractor insofar as the sale of the automobile was concerned.

2. There was no proof authorizing the award of damages under the law fixing the measure of damages for the breach of the warranty in this case.

W. E. Nail sued The Studebaker Corporation for alleged breach of an express warranty. The plaintiff alleged in substance: that on April 11, 1949, plaintiff purchased from defendant through its agent, Johnson-Winge Company, of Waycross, Georgia, a new 1949 Studebaker automobile; that plaintiff paid cash in the amount of $825.00 and gave notes for the balance of the purchase price; that defendant, through its agent Johnson-Winge Motor Mcompany, simultaneously with the purchase by plaintiff of the automobile, and as a part of the transaction, delivered to plaintiff an instrument which contained, among other things, an express warranty under which defendant warranted the automobile to be free from defects in material and workmanship; that during a rainstorm immediately after the purchase said automobile began leaking and the body filled with water several inches within the car; that plaintiff reported such to defendant's agent at Waycross; that various representatives of defendant tried to fix said leak but were never successful; that such defect was covered by the said warranty; that because of said defect plaintiff could not operate said automobile; that because of such defect in the automobile, plaintiff refused to make further payment on the automobile and that the automobile was repossessed and taken out of his hands by Universal C.I.T. Corporation, who, plaintiff believes, purchased from defendant or defendant's agent Johnson-Winge Motor Company, plaintiff's contract regarding the automobile; that as a result of the breach and of defendant's failure and refusal to return the purchase money paid by plaintiff, he had been damaged in the sum of $825.00. Defendant filed an answer of general denial and specifically denied that Johnson-Winge Motor Company was its agent. The case was tried by the court without the intervention of a jury and the court found for the plaintiff in the sum of $236.05. Defendant's motion for a new trial on the general grounds was overruled and defendant excepts.

Smith, Kilpatrick, Cody, Rogers & McClatchey, Atlanta, for plaintiff in error.

Roland Neeson, Weldon Shows and Clarence Bell, all of Atlanta, for defendant in error.

FELTON, Judge.

1. The face of the instrument relied upon by plaintiff is as follows:

'Dealer Service Policy for Studebaker Owners


'This motor vehicle has been properly prepared before delivery to the owner in accordance with standard factory instructions.

'Parts and Labor

'For ninety days after delivery to the original purchaser, provided the vehicle has not been driven to exceed 4,000 miles, any parts (including all original equipment except tires) which are replaced under the terms of the Standard Factory Warranty will be installed by any authorized Studebaker dealer in the United States or Canada without charge to the owner for material or labor. The advantages of this arrangement for any vehicle that is away from the point of purchase are obvious.

'Adjustment Services

'The owner is entitled to receive gratis, as required, the lubrication and adjustment services as listed in this policy. These services are to be completed within ninety days following the date of delivery of the vehicle and before such vehicle has been driven to exceed 4,000 miles. These services will be performed gratis only by the dealer from whom the vehicle was purchased and advance arrangements should be made with him if these services are to become due while the owner is touring or after a change of residence.

'Vehicles to Which Applicable

'This Service Policy applies to new Studebaker motor vehicle purchased from franchised Studebaker dealers, except vehicles which have been used by dealers as demonstrators. In the case of demonstrators the provisions of the previous paragraph entitled 'Parts and Labor' apply for the unexpired portion of the time and mileage limits which are measured from the date on which the demonstrator was placed in service by the dealer.


'Throughout the life of the vehicle the owner is entitled to have it inspected without charge by any authorized Studebaker dealer, provided such inspection requires no adjusting, dismantling, disassembling of parts, or use of specialized equipment.

'Service Identification

'This copy of the Dealer Service Policy, properly signed by the dealer selling the vehicle, will serve to introduce the owner to any other authorized Studebaker dealer and entitle him to receive service in accordance with this policy. The owner should carry this policy and other identification with him for presentation when necessary.

'Regular Maintenance--Parts and Service Charges

'Studebaker owners travel with the assurance of a friendly, nation-wide service organization. Studebaker Branch offices are conveniently located in leading cities throughout the country. For the benefit of owners, Studebaker has provided its dealers with published parts list prices, and recommended labor schedules on regular maintenance work. Genuine Studebaker parts are sold through Studebaker dealers and Authorized Service Stations and can be procured throughout the United States and Canada at established prices.

'Issued By

'Johnson-Winge Motor Company

by C. D. Davis

Signature of Dealer

Not Balid Unless Signed'

The reverse side of such instrument is as follows:

'Standard Factory Warranty

'We warrant each new motor vehicle sold by us to be free from defects in material and workmanship under normal use and service, our obligation under this warranty being limited to making good at Studebaker factories any part or parts thereof, including all equipment or trade accessories (except tires) supplied by Studebaker as standard or optional equipment, which shal, within ninety (90) days after making delivery of such vehicle to the original purchaser or before such vehicle has been driven four thousand (4,000) miles, whichever event shall first occur, be returned to us with transportation charges prepaid and which our examination shall disclose to our satisfaction to have been thus defective; this warranty being expressly in lieu of all other warranties, express or implied, and of all...

To continue reading

Request your trial
64 cases
  • Henningsen v. Bloomfield Motors, Inc.
    • United States
    • New Jersey Supreme Court
    • May 9, 1960
    ...for this warranty is the purchase of the manufacturer's product from the dealer by the ultimate buyer. Studebaker Corp. v. Nail, 82 Ga.App. 779, 62 S.E.2d 198 (Ct.App.1950). Although the franchise agreement between the defendants recites that the relationship of principal and agent is not c......
  • Hines v. Mercedes-Benz Usa, LLC
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Georgia
    • January 5, 2005 Plaintiff was able to drive the vehicle with no seat back problems for over two months. 2. Plaintiff cited Studebaker v. Nail, 82 Ga.App. 779, 62 S.E.2d 198 (1950) in support of the argument that privity is not required for revocation. Because the plaintiff in Studebaker was not seeking ......
  • In re Porsche Cars N. Am., Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Ohio
    • July 19, 2012
    ...exists ....Chrysler Corp. v. Wilson Plumbing Co., Inc., 132 Ga.App. 435, 208 S.E.2d 321, 323 (1974) (citing Studebaker Corp. v. Nail, 82 Ga.App. 779, 62 S.E.2d 198, 202 (1950)); see also McQueen v. Minolta Bus. Solutions, 275 Ga.App. 297, 620 S.E.2d 391, 393 (2005) (“[W]hen a buyer purchase......
  • Cova v. Harley Davidson Motor Co.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US
    • September 30, 1970
    ...mislabeling); Free v. Sluss (1948), 87 Cal.App.2d Supp. 933, 197 P.2d 854 (guarantee on soap package); Studebaker Corp. v. Nail (1950), 82 Ga.App. 779, 62 S.E.2d 198 (express warranty); Spartanburg Hotel Corporation v. Alexander Smith, Inc. (1957), 231 S.C. 1, 97 S.E.2d 199 (oral express wa......
  • 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