Ward v. Schofferman, 14.
| Decision Date | 14 May 1947 |
| Docket Number | No. 14.,14. |
| Parties | WARD v. SCHOFFERMAN et al. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Essex Common Pleas.
Action by George Ward against Thomas Schofferman and David Pochtar, trading as Exchange Motor Sales Company, for damages for breach of warranty in sale of automobile. From a judgment for plaintiff, the defendants appeal.
Judgment affirmed.
October term, 1946, before CASE, C. J., and HEHER and COLIE, JJ.
Parsonnet, Weitzman & Oransky, of Newark (Samuel Weitzman, of Newark, of counsel), for appellants.
Hodes & Hodes, of Newark (Irving L. Hodes, of Newark, of counsel), for respondent.
The action is for damages by the buyer of an automobile for an alleged breach of warranty by the sellers.
On December 1, 1944, defendants sold to plaintiff a used 1938 Buick sedan automobile at the ceiling price fixed by the Federal Office of Price Administration, under a written warranty that the vehicle was ‘in good operating condition,’ and would ‘remain in such condition under normal use and service for a period of 30 days after delivery, or 1,000 miles, whichever may first occur.’ Defendants also agreed, if the car were ‘delivered during the above period’ to their place of business, ‘to make with reasonable promptness any repairs or replacements, which may be necessary to its good operating condition in accordance with normal use and service, at a cost to the purchaser * * * of not more than 50% of the normal charge for such repairs and replacements,’ which ‘normal charge is not in excess of OPA ceilings.’
The jury impanelled to try the issue returned a verdict for plaintiff for the full purchase price; and defendants appeal from the consequent judgment.
Error is assigned upon Judge Hartshorne's rulings denying defendants' motions for a nonsuit and a directed verdict, for want of evidence, so it is said, that the car was not in good operating condition at the time of the sale, and so a failure of proof of breach of the warranty. The point is not well taken.
There was evidence tending to show delivery of the automobile on the day of its purchase seemingly in operating condition. But on the following day the motor ‘wouldn't start’; and there was a recurrence of this on four or five occasions during the first two and a half weeks of plaintiff's possession, notwithstanding defendants' efforts to place the vehicle in running condition. Finally, on the ensuing December 19th, when the motor again failed, de...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Acme Equipment Corp. v. Montgomery Co-op. Creamery Ass'n
...of two courts which have considered the definition of 'good' in relation to the condition or quality of goods. In Ward v. Schofferman (1947), 135 N.J.L. 596, 52 A.2d 804, the words 'good operating condition' were a sufficient warranty to present a fact question on '[I]n good shape and good ......
-
Simmons v. Brooks.
...have been breached, the Supreme Court of New Jersey affirmed a judgment returning to the buyer the purchase price paid. Ward v. Schofferman, 135 N.J.L. 596, 52 A.2d 804. The judgment of the trial court on count one is affirmed. As to count two we conclude that the judgment of the trial cour......