12921 Precedential Affirmed Processed

Hendricks v. Horseless Carriage, Inc.

Louisiana Court of Appeal, Second Circuit · Filed May 24, 1976 · 332 So. 2d 892

Also decided on this docket: La. Ct. App. 4th Cir., October 6, 1983 438 So. 2d 274; La. Ct. App. 4th Cir., January 10, 1983 426 So. 2d 260; La. Ct. App. 1st Cir., July 16, 1979 374 So. 2d 141

Cited by

Tommy Taylor v. Randall Taylor, Individually and Randall Taylor d/b/a TNT Auto Repair and … La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2025
Jan Taylor and Jessica Tranette Taylor v. Orr Motors of Shreveport, D/B/A Orr Nissan La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2024
Donald R. Modicue v. Prince Of Peace Auto Sale, LLC La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2021
Sabbath v. Martin 24 So. 3d 1035 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2009
Shelton v. Standard/700 Associates 778 So. 2d 1265 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
Pias v. Wiggins 688 So. 2d 1103 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1996
Mitchell v. Popiwchak 677 So. 2d 1050 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1996
Jeffers v. Thorpe 673 So. 2d 202 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1996
Bo-Pic Foods, Inc. v. POLYFLEX FILM AND CONVERTING 665 So. 2d 787 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
Evans v. Waguespack 638 So. 2d 1153 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
Savannah v. Anthony's Auto Sales, Inc. 618 So. 2d 676 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1993
Anthony's Auto Sales, Inc. v. Shephard 600 So. 2d 125 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1992

all 28 citing documents »

Authorities cited

Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.

Richardson v. French 253 So. 2d 602
Anderson v. Bohn Ford, Inc. 291 So. 2d 786
Lagrue v. Murrhee 294 So. 2d 829
Dunlap v. Chrysler Motors Corp. 299 So. 2d 495
Lee v. Blanchard 264 So. 2d 364
McLain v. Cuccia 259 So. 2d 337
Juneau v. Bob McKinnon Chevrolet Company 260 So. 2d 919
Stumpf v. Metairie Motor Sales, Inc. 212 So. 2d 705
Hob's Refrigeration & Air Conditioning, Inc. v. Poche 304 So. 2d 326
Rey v. Cuccia 298 So. 2d 840
Prince v. Paretti Pontiac Company, Inc. 281 So. 2d 112
Media Production Consultants, Inc. v. Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc. 262 La. 80

Opinion text

332 So.2d 892 (1976) Erma HENDRICKS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. HORSELESS CARRIAGE, INC., et al., Defendants-Appellants. No. 12921. Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Second Circuit. May 24, 1976. *893 Jerry A. Kirby, Monroe, for defendants-appellants. Bruscato & Loomis by Percy A. Ford, Jr., Monroe, for plaintiff-appellee. Before BOLIN, HALL and MARVIN, JJ. MARVIN, Judge. Defendant used car dealer appeals from a judgment in a redhibitory action rescinding the sale of a used car and ordering return of the purchase price to plaintiff. Defendant does not seriously contest the existence of latent redhibitory vices (defective brakes and transmission) but contends the purchaser expressly waived the warranty implied by law when she wrote on the bill of sale. "I buy this car with no warranty Mrs. Erma Hendricks" The used car here was nine years old. It sold for $750. The defects in the braking system appeared some two weeks after the sale. We affirm the trial court. The dealer further emphasizes that the transaction was consummated beneath a sign which was imprinted in eight inch letters: "ALL CARS SOLD AS IS! [sic] PLEASE TEST BEFORE BUYING" The trial court resolved in the purchaser's favor factual conflicts as to what was said regarding the writing of the waiver and the purchaser's reading and understanding the sign. The lower court noted that the purchasera 39-year-old woman of 11 years schooling who was buying her first carwas not equal in experience to the dealer in used cars for many years. La.C.C. Art. 2476 imposes on the seller a warranty against hidden defects of the thing sold or its redhibitory vices. Art. 2520 states that the redhibitory vice is a vice or defect in the thing sold which renders it either absolutely useless, or its use so inconvenient and imperfect, that it must be supposed that the purchaser would not have bought the thing had he known of the vice. In Richardson v. French, 253 So.2d 602 (La.App.2d Cir. 1971) we noted that the seller warrants the thing sold is fit for the purpose intended and that this warranty could be expressly waived. See La.C.C. Arts. 2474, 2503 and cases cited in Richardson . *894 Our holding there has been strengthened by more recent decisions of our highest court. [1] From these decisions and from Anderson v. Bohn Ford, 291 So.2d 786 (La. App.4th Cir. 1974), writ denied 294 So.2d 829 (La.1974), it is established that three elements must exist before a waiver is held to be effective: (1) The waiver must be written in clear and unambiguous terms; (2) The waiver must be contained in the sale and chattel mortgage document; and (3) The waiver must either be brought to the attention of the buyer or explained to him. Here, the contended waiver was contained in the sales and chattel mortgage instrument and it was brought to the attention of the purchaser, for it was she who wrote the terms thereon. The contended waiver here does not meet the clear and unambiguous test, however, and must be held ineffective. Terms such as "no warranties of any kind or character" and "sold as is" have been repeatedly held not to have satisfied the requirement that the terms of the waiver shall be clear and unambiguous with respect to the waiver of the warranty of fitness. See in addition to the cases cited, Dunlap v. Chrysler Motors, 299 So.2d 495 (La.App.4th Cir. 1974); Lee v. Blanchard, 264 So.2d 364 (La.App.1st Cir. 1972); McLain v. Cuccia, 259 So.2d 337 (La.App. 4th Cir. 1972); Juneau v. Bob McKinnon Chevrolet, 260 So.2d 919 (La.App.4th Cir. 1972); and Stumpf v. Metairie Motor Sales, 212 So.2d 705 (La.App.4th Cir. 1968). As in Richardson, supra, this plaintiff purchased the used automobile to get to and from her work. There we recognized that it would be impossible to establish an exact standard or description of the warranty applicable to the sale of used cars of varying ages and conditions. This impossibility also exists with respect to supplying legally sacramental language necessary to expressly waive the warranty of fitness because the intended use of any used automobile varies with the individual purchaser. Whether the warranty of fitness for a particular use or uses is waived by a purchaser is always a question of fact to be determined under the guidelines set forth herein. Each case must depend upon its own circumstances. At appellant's cost, the judgment below is AFFIRMED. NOTES [1] Hob's Refrigeration v. Poche, 304 So.2d 326 (La.1974); Rey v. Cuccia, 298 So.2d 840 (La.1974); Prince v. Paretti Pontiac, 281 So.2d 112 (La.1973); Media prod. v. Mercedes-Benz of North Amer., 262 La. 80 , 262 So.2d 377 (1972).