Dildine v. Town & Country Truck Sales Inc.

No jury question remained as to whether the defendant breached an implied warranty of merchantability associated with a car sold to the plaintiff since the plaintiff's own expert testified that he could only conjecture that the car's cooling system may have been defective when sold.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

Seeking damages pursuant to the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act,1 Laura Dildine sued Town & Country Truck Sales, Inc. “Town & Country” for breach of the implied warranty of merchantability associated with a car she purchased from the dealership. Dildine also sought to revoke acceptance of the vehicle. After Dildine presented her case to the jury, the trial court directed a verdict for Town & Country. Dildine appeals, and for reasons that follow, we affirm. 1. ” ‘A directed verdict is proper only if there is no conflict in the evidence as to any material issue and the evidence introduced, with all reasonable deductions therefrom, shall demand a particular verdict.’ “ 2 In determining whether an evidentiary conflict exists, we apply the “any evidence test” and construe the evidence favorably to Dildine, the party opposing the directed verdict.3

Viewed in this light, the evidence shows that Dildine purchased a used 1998 Oldsmobile Cutlass from Town & Country on June 5, 2000. When Dildine bought the car, it had 35,478 miles on it. Dildine drove the Oldsmobile without incident for three and one-half months, putting approximately 14,000 additional miles on the car. In late September 2000, however, the alternator malfunctioned, and the Oldsmobile was towed to Town & Country. The dealership fixed the alternator under an extended warranty service contract that Dildine had purchased with the car.

Dildine v. Town & Country Truck Sales Inc.

No jury question remained as to whether the defendant breached an implied warranty of merchantability associated with a car sold to the plaintiff since the plaintiff's own expert testified that he could only conjecture that the car's cooling system may have been defective when sold.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report