Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Prince v. Paretti Pontiac Company, Inc., 281 So. 2d 112.

71 citing documents.

Alexander v. Burroughs Corp. 359 So. 2d 607 La. 1978
Disallowing the credit: Prince v. Paretti Pontiac Company, Inc., (defendant did not seek reimbursement for buyer's use; implies that had defendant requested the credit he might have been entitled to it); Clark v. McBride Dodge, Inc., (4th Cir. 1974) (no evidence in the record on which to base a credit for use); de la Houssaye v. Star Chrysler, Inc., 284 So.2
Perrin v. Read Imports, Inc. 359 So. 2d 738 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1978
But ease of repair is not of itself a defense against redhibition, Prince v. Paretti Pontiac Co. Inc., La.1973, (although it may have significance in a third-party claim against the manufacturer by a dealer who was obliged to perform the repair).
Burns v. Lamar-Lane Chevrolet, Inc. 354 So. 2d 620 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
held that tender is unnecessary as a prerequisite to a redhibition action.
Rankin v. Blanchard 349 So. 2d 968 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
See Prince v. Paretti Pontiac Company, Inc.
Bendana v. Mossy Motors, Inc. 347 So. 2d 946 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1977
Boudreaux v. Mazda Motors of America, Inc. 347 So. 2d 504 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1977
Included in the expenses of sale are any finance charges, Prince v. Paretti Pontiac Co., Inc., La.1973, , although finance charges for the borrowed portion of the price also constitute the value of the use of that portion of the price, Smith v. Max Thieme Chev.
Purvis v. Statewide Trailer Sales, Inc. 339 So. 2d 403 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
508; Breaux v. Winnebago Industries, Inc ., above; Prince v. Paretti Pontiac Company, Inc., La., , in which the Supreme Court recognized that credit was due a vendor for the use of an object by the purchaser but which declined to allow such recovery for failure of proof.
Hendricks v. Horseless Carriage, Inc. 332 So. 2d 892 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1976
Jordan v. LeBlanc & Broussard Ford, Inc. 332 So. 2d 534 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1976
it was held that a seller was not entitled to an opportunity to repair a defect in a thing sold as a condition precedent to a rescission suit.
Guillory v. Morein Motor Company, Inc. 322 So. 2d 375 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1975
4th Cir. 1962); Prince v. Paretti Pontiac Company, Inc., (La.App.
Wiltz v. Dixie Auto Sales, Incorporated 315 So. 2d 811 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1975
And see Prince v. Paretti Pontiac Company, Inc., which was legislatively overruled by the 1974 amendment to LSA-C.C.
Moreno's, Inc. v. LAKE CHARLES CATHOLIC HIGH SCHS., INC. 315 So. 2d 660 La. 1975
2541-44; Prince v. Paretti Pontiac Co., Inc., Rey v. Cuccia, La., .
Ticheli v. Silmon 304 So. 2d 792 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1974
Prince v. Paretti Pontiac Company, Inc., (La.
Sallinger v. Mayer 304 So. 2d 730 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1974
In Prince v. Paretti Pontiac Company, Inc., it was held that to be effective a waiver of the implied warranty against hidden defects must be clear and unambiguous and that the evidence must show that the waiver clause was either brought to the purchaser's attention or explained to him.
Hob's Refrigeration & Air Conditioning, Inc. v. Poche 304 So. 2d 326 La. 1974
Prince v. Paretti Pontiac Company, Inc., Radalec, Incorporated *328 v. Automatic Firing Corp., 228 La.
Dunlap v. Chrysler Motors Corp. 299 So. 2d 495 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1974
Prince v. Paretti Pontiac Company, Inc., La., (1973); Juneau v. Bob McKinnon Chev.
Rey v. Cuccia 298 So. 2d 840 La. 1974
Prince v. Paretti Pontiac Company, Inc.
Anderson v. Bohn Ford, Inc. 291 So. 2d 786 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1974
art. 2548 allow for a waiver of warranty, [1] the Supreme Court of Louisiana in the recent case of Prince v. Paretti Pontiac Company, Inc., (1973), sets forth specific requirements which must be met before the waiver can be effective.
Clark v. McBride Dodge, Inc. 289 So. 2d 841 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1974
"Additionally, we note the following language utilized by the Supreme Court in the opinion which remanded this case: `We hold therefore that Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc., is solidarity liable with Cookie's Auto Sales, Inc. for the price of the automobile and other allowable expenses.'" Also see: Prince v. Paretti Pontiac Company, Inc., La., (1973).
Equilease Corporation v. Hill 290 So. 2d 423 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1974
Also, in Prince v. Paretti Pontiac Company, Inc., the Louisiana Supreme Court dealing with redhibition of an automobile set forth the requirements for a valid waiver of warranty against hidden defects under LSA-C.C.
De La Houssaye v. Star Chrysler, Inc. 284 So. 2d 63 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1973
See Prince v. Paretti Pontiac Company, Inc., Docket #52674, relative to defect in transmission.