Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Wilfamco, Inc. v. Interstate Electric Co., 58 So. 2d 833.

16 citing documents.

Guillory v. Hebert 31 So. 3d 1097 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
696 , ) or, ‘the cost of repairs necessary to make the thing whole’ (Wilfamco, , ).
Connell v. Davis 940 So. 2d 195 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2006
Truelove v. Easley 521 So. 2d 1229 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1988
696 , and Wilfamco, , ) it has been concluded that, in actions for quanti minoris involving the sale of realty, the measure of recovery is the amount necessary to convert the unsound structure into a sound one.
Verbick v. RGC Investments, Inc. 477 So. 2d 858 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1985
696 , ) or, as otherwise expressed, "the cost of repairs necessary to make the thing whole" (Wilfamco, , ).
Bustamante v. Manale 397 So. 2d 842 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1981
696 , and Wilfamco, , ) it has been concluded that, in actions for quanti minoris involving the sale of realty, the measure of recovery is the amount necessary to convert the unsound structure into a sound one.
Verlander v. Hoffer 351 So. 2d 229 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1978
696 , ) or, as otherwise expressed, `the cost of repairs necessary to make the thing whole' ( Wilfamco, , )."
Busenlener v. Peck 316 So. 2d 27 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1975
As the defects were existent at the time of the sale and were also not apparent, the plaintiffs are entitled to reduction in the purchase price in an amount equal to the cost of repairs necessary to restore the house to the condition it was warranted to be in at the time of purchase, Wilfamco, , (1952); Cook, supra .
Brown v. Dauzat 157 So. 2d 570 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1963
Wilfamco, , ; McEachern v. Plauche Lumber & Construction Co., 220 La.
Fitzmorris v. Kelly 152 So. 2d 36 La. 1963
696 , and Wilfamco, , ) it has been concluded that, in actions for quanti minoris involving the sale of realty, the measure of recovery is the amount necessary to convert the unsound structure into a sound one.
Pursell v. Kelly 139 So. 2d 12 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1962
1099 , ; Wilfamco, , ; Tuminello v. Mawby, 220 La.
Delta Equipment & Construction Co. v. Cook 142 So. 2d 427 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
Wilfamco, , ; Lemonier v. Coco, 237 La.
Lemonier v. Coco 130 So. 2d 414 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1961
696 , ) or, as otherwise expressed, ‘the cost of repairs necessary to make the thing whole’ (Wilfamco, , ).
Lemonier v. Coco 112 So. 2d 436 La. 1959
696 , ) or, as otherwise expressed, “the cost of repairs necessary to make the thing whole” (Wilfamco, , ).
Deshotel v. Higgins 109 So. 2d 805 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1959
In that case we quoted the following from Wilfamco, , : “ ‘The action quanti minoris or for reduction in the price is proper when the thing sold is so defective that it is useless and altogether unsuitable for its purpose or when the defect is such as to diminish its value.
Rodriguez v. Hudson 79 So. 2d 578 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1955
This case is not in anywise similar to Wilfamco, Inc., v. Interstate Electric Co., , , which is cited and heavily relied on by defendant and in which the alleged defect was that the electric circuits were overloaded.
Mattes v. Heintz 69 So. 2d 924 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1954
In Wilfamco, Inc., v. Interstate Electric Co., , , the Supreme Court said: "The action quanti minoris or for reduction in the price is proper when the thing sold is so defective that it is useless and altogether unsuitable for its purpose or when the defect is such as to diminish its value.