Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Reech v. Coco, 65 So. 2d 790.

20 citing documents.

MTU of North America, Inc. v. Raven Marine, Inc. 603 So. 2d 803 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1992
(1953), the use of a vehicle for 9,600 miles did not bar an action for rescission of sale.
Dickerson v. Begnaud Motors, Inc. 446 So. 2d 536 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1984
(1953) and Cain v. Rapides Dodge, Inc., (La.App.
Alexander v. Burroughs Corp. 359 So. 2d 607 La. 1978
Dunlap v. Chrysler Motors Corp. 299 So. 2d 495 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1974
Breaux v. Winnebago Industries, Inc. 282 So. 2d 763 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1973
(1953), Bergeron v. Mid-City Motors, Inc., (La.App.
Prince v. Paretti Pontiac Company, Inc. 281 So. 2d 112 La. 1973
80 , (1972); , (1953); Jackson v. Breard Motor Co., Inc., 167 La.
RO Roy & Company, Inc. v. a & W TRAILER SALES 277 So. 2d 204 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1973
2d 918 (La.App., 3d Cir. 1968), , (1953), it was expressly recognized that the subsequent repair of a defective automobile after return of the automobile was made would not affect the fact that the vehicle was unsatisfactory and unfit for the purpose for which it was purchased.
Donachricha v. D'Antoni 270 So. 2d 149 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1972
Reech v. *152 Coco, , (1953); Stumpf v. Metairie Motor Sales, Inc., supra.
Media Pro. Consult., Inc. v. Mercedes-Benz of No. Am., Inc. 247 So. 2d 266 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1971
(1953); Cain v. Rapides Dodge, Inc., La.
Brown v. MID CITY MOTORS, INC. 248 So. 2d 27 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1971
982 , ; , ; Goff v. Dewey Oliver, Inc., La.App., 3 Cir., .
Stumpf v. Metairie Motor Sales, Inc. 212 So. 2d 705 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1968
Cain v. Rapides Dodge, Inc. 207 So. 2d 918 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1968
our Supreme Court, speaking through Justice McCaleb, expressly recognized the fact that although the vehicle was subsequently repaired after tender was made, this would not affect the fact that the vehicle was unsatisfactory and unfit for the purpose for which it was purchased.
Hebert v. Claude Y. Woolfolk Corporation 176 So. 2d 814 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1965
346 , ; Goff v. Dewey Oliver, Inc., La.App.
Bergeron v. Mid-City Motors, Inc. 162 So. 2d 835 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1964
See Harris v. Automatic Enterprises of Louisiana, Inc., La.App., , at page 341, wherein the Court, , , held that: "* * * A machine or item of equipment that will not meet the needs of the owner and the purpose for which it was purchased and which will not run or runs intermittently or imperfectly and which requires the frequent attention of a mechanic to keep it going is an abomination to the owner."
Associates Discount Corp. v. Kase 155 So. 2d 35 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1963
In the present case the use of the car was so ‘inconvenient and imperfect’ that it could not be supposed that defendant would have purchased it, had he known of its defects or vices.” See, also: , ; Falk v. Luke Motor Company, Inc., 237 La.
Harris v. Automatic Enterprises of Louisiana, Inc. 145 So. 2d 335 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1962
Stubblefield Chevrolet Co. v. Martinez 124 So. 2d 393 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1960
The law of this case was expressed in Reech v. Coco, 1953, , , wherein the Supreme Court stated: “Verily, a careful examination of the record is most convincing of the correctness of plaintiff’s position that there was a defect in the motor which rendered the operation of the car so imperfect as to warrant a rescission of the sale.
Dougherty v. Petrere 123 So. 2d 60 La. 1960
Falk v. Luke Motor Company, Inc. 112 So. 2d 683 La. 1959
478 , , 65 Sp.2d 790, - 791.
Westside Appliance Co. v. Krause 78 So. 2d 206 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1955
and Colt Company v. Seal, 4 La.App.