Warren v. W.W. Sheane Auto Co.

• Decision Date: 06 January 1922
• Docket Number: 16755.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court
• Parties: WARREN v. W. W. SHEANE AUTO CO.

203 P. 372

118 Wash. 213

WARREN v. W. W. SHEANE AUTO CO.

No. 16755.

Supreme Court of Washington

January 6, 1922

Department 1.

Appeal from Superior Court, Yakima County; W. O. Nichoson, Judge.

Action by G. Warren against W. W. Sheane Auto Company, a corporation. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Frank J. Allen, of Yakima, for appellant.

Grady Shumate & Velekanje, of Yakima, for respondent.

TOLMAN J.

Respondent as plaintiff below, brought this action, alleging in his complaint, among other things, that in July, 1919, he purchased from appellant a certain truck, which was represented to be mechanically sound, in good condition, of two tons' capacity, and capable of hauling a two-ton load over any of the roads in Yakima county; that he had no knowledge of, or experience with trucks, which fact he made known to appellant, and in making the purchase relied wholly upon the representations made by the seller; that he turned in as a first payment an Overland touring car of an agreed value of $500, and it appears that the balance of the purchase price $400, was to have been paid in installments as specified in a conditional sale agreement executed by the parties at the time. Respondent further alleges, with considerable detail, his experience in trying to use the truck, the defects therein which he found to exist, including an allegation that it was a one-ton truck only, and that it was impossible to use the truck for his purposes, which were known to appellant at the time of the purchase; that although demand was made therefor appellant refused and neglected to make repairs and alterations or in any manner put the truck in a workable condition, and, further, that appellant, on March 10, 1920, took possession of the truck, canceled the conditional sale agreement and retains the truck under claim of absolute ownership. The complaint specifies that respondent has been damaged in the sum of $1,800 by reason of the inability to do the work contemplated to be done with the truck at the time of the purchase, in the further sum of $500, the value of the Overland car turned in on account of the purchase price, and the additional sum of $500 by reason of the truck being worthless for any purpose. Appellant answered, making the usual denials, and setting up several affirmative defenses, which, so far as they are now material may be grasped from the discussion which follows. The cause was tried to a jury, which rendered a verdict in respondent's favor for $500, and from a judgment on the verdict this appeal is prosecuted.

Appellant has made no formal assignments of error, but as we gather from the brief and oral arguments what appears to be its contention, we will mention each point raised, and discuss it so far as seems necessary.

1. That the action is for a breach of warranty, which cannot be maintained, as title never vested in the purchaser; or, if the action be for fraud and deceit, knowledge of the falsity of the representations made and intent to deceive must be proved. We are of the opinion that the action is not based upon a warranty, express or implied, but solely upon the alleged false and fraudulent representations inducing the sale. An examination of the record fully convinces us that...