Case Name: Robert JOHNSON, Jr. v. COLONIAL BUICK, INC.
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1976-06-30
Citations: 334 So. 2d 453
Docket Number: No. 7271
Parties: Robert JOHNSON, Jr. v. COLONIAL BUICK, INC.
Judges: Before REDMANN, LEMMON, GUL-OTTA, BOUTALL and SCHOTT, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 334
Pages: 453–457

Head Matter:
Robert JOHNSON, Jr. v. COLONIAL BUICK, INC.
No. 7271.
Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit.
June 30, 1976.
Frank S. Bruno, New Orleans, for plaintiff-appellant.
Edwin A. Stoutz, Jr., New Orleans, for defendant-appellee.
Before REDMANN, LEMMON, GUL-OTTA, BOUTALL and SCHOTT, JJ.

Opinion:
SCHOTT, Judge.
Plaintiff brought suit for the return of $500 he deposited with defendant in connection with the purchase of a new automobile. Defendant answered and reconvened for damages allegedly resulting from plaintiff's failure to accept the car. From a judgment dismissing plaintiff's suit and defendant's reconventional demand only plaintiff has appealed.
Plaintiff ordered the car on October 3, 1973, and he filled out and signed an order form contract. Conspicuous on the form was the statement, "TO BE DELIVERED ON OR ABOUT _, 19_", but no date was inserted on the form. On October 4 plaintiff made his deposit. The automobile was delivered to defendant by the manufacturer between January 15 and 20, 1974. In the meantime, plaintiff's attorney notified defendant on January 10 that the order was canceled and a formal demand was made on defendant for a return of the deposit.
Plaintiff testified that defendant's salesman who took his order, Eugene Turk, promised delivery in six weeks. Plaintiff contends that he was planning a vacation for December 1 and ordered the car with the understanding that it would be ready at that time.
Turk testified that he did not promise delivery by any particular date but admitted that plaintiff was anxious to have the car for his vacation and that he told plaintiff the car would be ready in "eight weeks or better."
The trial judge in his reasons for judgment stated that he "was unimpressed" with plaintiff's testimony. Even accepting defendant's evidence as true, however, we are unable to agree with the trial court's judgment.
Reasons given by defendant for the delay in delivery were twofold; first, because special paint and a special landau top on the car delayed its manufacture and, second, the General Motors factory employees took their vacations during the last two weeks of December. These considerations explained the delay and were surely beyond the control of defendant, but the uncontradicted testimony of defendant's witnesses was to the effect that none of these delays were anticipated by defendant when the agreement was made. On the contrary, the "eight weeks or better" statement encompassed the probability of some delay due to the special paint job but defendant had no reason to anticipate further delays because of the landau top or the vacations.
The question is whether by January 10, 1974, plaintiff was at liberty to withdraw from his contract pursuant to LSA-C.C. Art. 2485. Since no time was agreed upon a reasonable time for delivery was implied. H. T. Cottam & Co. v. Moises, 149 La. 305, 88 So. 916 (1921). As of January 10, 1974, when plaintiff canceled the sale fourteen weeks had passed since the order was placed so that the issue becomes whether this constituted a reasonble time.
Surely, the determination of reasonableness requires a consideration of what the parties intended when the agreement was made. The trial judge observed: "The plaintiff is an individual of intelligence and was aware or should have been aware that delivery by Thanksgiving was highly unlikely, if not a near impossibility."
In the first place, we do not find any evidence in the record to support this finding. Turk's testimony was that he promised delivery in "eight weeks or better." Thanksgiving day was exactly eight weeks after the order was placed, so that even defendant considered eight weeks a possibility. But we are not concerned with a mere delay of eight weeks but one of fourteen weeks. The trial judge found this to be a reasonable delay because of the special features ordered by plaintiff and the fact that the factory employees went on vacation at the year's end, but the evidence shows that neither party anticipated these delays when the contract was signed. Therefore, there could be no meeting of the minds between plaintiff and defendant to the effect that the time for delivery would involve these delays so that fourteen weeks would be a reasonable time.
If we may disregard the intention of the parties at the time the contract was made in determining the reasonableness of the time for delivery it would follow that a seller could hold a buyer to a contract to purchase for an indefinite length of time if the seller could show only that the delays were outside of his control. We cannot conclude that the law in general, and C.C. Art. 2485 in particular, is susceptible to this construction. Yet the effect of the trial court's decision was exactly that because when plaintiff canceled the contract on January 10 he knew no more about the anticipated date of delivery than he had on November 29, eight weeks after the contract was made, or on December 29 when he returned from his vacation, some twelve weeks after the contract was made.
Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is reversed and there is judgment in favor of plaintiff, Robert Johnson, Jr., and against defendant, Colonial Buick, Inc., in the sum of $500, with legal interest from June 18, 1974, until paid and for all costs.
REVERSED AND RENDERED.
BOUTALL, J., dissents with written reasons.