Trial v. McCoy, 6595
| Decision Date | 15 June 1977 |
| Docket Number | No. 6595,6595 |
| Citation | 553 S.W.2d 199 |
| Parties | 22 UCC Rep.Serv. 48 Hubert TRIAL, d/b/a Old Fort Trading Post, Appellant, v. Don McCOY, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
The question presented by this appeal is whether Tex.Bus. & Comm.Code Ann. Sec. 17.50, known as the Deceptive Trade Practices Consumer Protection Act, permits the award of treble damages and attorney's fees to one who is a merchant. A second question involves the proof necessary to show a breach of warranty of title.
Appellee bought an antique pistol from Appellant for $1,000.00 and brought this action for breach of warranty of title when the gun was taken from Appellee by police officers as being a stolen gun and was returned to a third party. The trial Court granted Appellee's motion for summary judgment awarding treble damages and attorney's fees. We affirm on the issue of liability and reverse on the issue of damages.
Appellee sought recovery for breach of warranty of title under Tex.Bus. & Comm.Code Ann. Sec. 2.312, which conforms to Section 2-312 of the Uniform Commercial Code promulgated by the American Law Institute in the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws. The Section provides that, in a contract of sale, there is a warranty by the seller that the title conveyed shall be good and its transfer rightful, and that the goods shall be delivered free from any security interest or encumbrance of which the buyer at the time of contracting has no knowledge. The question here presented is whether there has been a breach of the warranty of title, and the answer to that question is dependent on whether there must be proof that the gun was stolen, or may the breach of warranty be established by the fact that there was a disturbance of quiet possession in Appellee.
The summary judgment evidence that the gun was stolen cannot be considered since it was hearsay. That leaves the evidence to be that the gun was taken from Appellee's possession by police officers on their information that it was stolen property, and it was never returned to Appellee. Appellee notified Appellant of the loss and Appellant subsequently refused to refund Appellee's money. If there is a duty to prove that the gun was stolen for breach of warranty of title, then Appellee's failure to do so would require a reversal of the summary judgment. We are of the opinion, however, that the proof made was sufficient under Section 2.312. The official comment to that Section provides:
Cases from other jurisdictions have found breach of warranty of title in the loss of the buyer's property where it was impounded by law enforcement officials. American Container Corp. v. Hanley Trucking Corp., 111 N.J.Super. 322, 268 A.2d 313 (1970); Ricklefs v. Clemens, 216 Kan. 128, 531 P.2d 94 (1975); John St. Auto Wrecking v. Motors Insurance Corporation, 56 Misc.2d 232, 288 N.Y.S.2d 281 (1968); Spillane v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co., 65 Misc.2d 290, 317 N.Y.S.2d 203 (1970), affirmed, 68 Misc.2d 783, 327 N.Y.S.2d 701 (1971). In American Container, the property was possessed by the police for ninety days and afterwards was returned to a third party. Such is the substance of the proof before us, and we think it sufficient to show that there was a breach of the warranty of title. The trial Court properly found that Appellee was entitled to recover under Tex.Bus. & Comm.Code Ann. Sec. 2.312, and that would entitle him to his actual damages loss of the purchase price. However, the award of treble damages presents a different question.
The trial Court awarded treble damages, costs of Court and attorney's fees as provided by Tex.Bus. & Comm.Code Ann. Sec. 17.50. Appellant, by appropriate points of error, questions Appellee's right to recover under that Section in that he was not a "consumer" within the meaning of the act. We are of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
South Hampton Co. v. Stinnes Corp.
...be the subject of a contract."); see generally 14 Texas Jurisprudence Sec. 110 at 186-87 and n. 91 (3d ed. 1981).29 Trial v. McCoy, 553 S.W.2d 199, 201 (Tex.Civ.App.1977), aff'd after remand, 581 S.W.2d 792, 794 (1979); Russell v. Hartford Casualty Insurance Co., 548 S.W.2d 737, 741 (Tex.Ci......
-
Saenz Motors v. Big H. Auto Auction, Inc., 2527
...breach of the warranty of title, regardless of whether or not it is ever established that the vehicles were in fact stolen. See, Trial v. McCoy, 553 S.W.2d 199 (Tex.Civ.App.--El Paso (1977), appeal after remand 581 S.W.2d 792); and, H.E.D. Sales, Inc. v. Szelc, 596 S.W.2d 299 (Tex.Civ.App.-......
-
Jefferson v. Jones
...Corp., supra, 268 A.2d at 317-18; John St. Auto Wrecking v. Motors Insurance Corp., supra, 288 N.Y.S.2d at 183-84; Trial v. McCoy, 553 S.W.2d 199, 200-01 (Tex.Civ.App.1977); 1 R. Anderson, Supra, § 2-312:13; W. Hawkland, Sales & Bulk Sales 83-84 (3d ed. 1976); R. Nordstrom, Supra, § 58, at ......
-
U.S. Steel Corp. v. Fiberglass Specialties, Inc.
...in Otto distinguished two prior decisions. Ratcliff v. Trenholm, 596 S.W.2d 645 (Tex.Civ.App.--Tyler 1980, writ ref'd n.r.e.) and Trial v. McCoy, 553 S.W.2d 199 (Tex.Civ.App.--El Paso 1977, no writ), in which the courts specifically held that one who purchased for resale was not a "consumer......