Title: Kopet v. Klein
Citation: 148 N.W.2d 385
Docket Number: 40200
State: Minnesota
Issuer: Minnesota Supreme Court
Date: January 27, 1967

148 N.W.2d 385 (1967) Alvin KOPET, Respondent, v. George KLEIN, dba Miracle Water Products, Appellant, Water Refining Company, Inc., Defendant. No. 40200. Supreme Court of Minnesota. January 27, 1967. *387 Robert M. Greising, Waterville, for appellant. Heinen &amp; Christian, Le Center, for respondent. NELSON, Justice. This is an appeal from an order of the trial court denying a motion of defendant, George Klein, doing business as Miracle Water Products, for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or for a new trial. Defendant was the distributor of certain water-softening devices and equipment manufactured by Water Refining Company, Inc. The latter, however, was not served with a summons and complaint. On March 19, 1964, defendant sold a water softener to plaintiff which was designed to regenerate automatically at pre-set intervals. The purchase price of the unit was $279 including installation. The water softener was installed at plaintiff's home by defendant and his local agent, Art Schuster, who set the various dials with which the softener was equipped so that the unit would function automatically. The unit functioned properly for the first 2 weeks except that even for that period it consumed an excessive amount of salt. Plaintiff contacted Schuster and informed him of this difficulty. After trying at least a dozen times to make the machine work properly, Schuster told plaintiff that he couldn't handle the problem but would notify defendant. It appears that plaintiff himself didn't notify defendant directly about the difficulties plaintiff had been experiencing in the operation of the unit until 6 months after its installation. After receiving direct notice from plaintiff, defendant sent down one of his men, a mechanic, to inspect the unit. The mechanic adjusted the setting. For some time thereafter it appears that the unit would regenerate automatically, but at odd hours, and would overflow, causing damage to plaintiff's basement floor. During the 2 months preceding the trial the machine had to be started manually. In March 1965 plaintiff's attorney advised defendant that the unit was not operating properly and that he should replace it or refund the purchase price. While the sale was made March 19, 1964, defendant admitted, when called for cross-examination under the rules, that he knew about the difficulties plaintiff was having during the month of March 1964. He also admits that in February 1965 he received a letter from the factory regarding the difficulty plaintiff *388 was having with the softener and that in March he received the letter from plaintiff's attorney. Plaintiff's claim against defendant is based in the main on Minn.St.1961, § 512.15(1), which provides: It is plaintiff's claim that he purchased the water softener for use in his residence and that defendant was notified and knew of that purpose. Plaintiff also claims that he relied upon defendant's warranty that the unit would be fit and proper for such use, but that it was unfit in that it failed to reduce the hardness of the water and the iron in it; that the water softener under the circumstances was worthless; and that by reason of the failure of the machine to function and operate as warranted, plaintiff incurred expenses of $50 in an attempt to make it work properly, sustained damage of $100 to his personal property, and incurred interest charges of $30.40 on the purchase of the machine. Defendant admits making the sale to plaintiff; that the machine used an abnormal amount of salt; and that it would not regenerate automatically. He also admitted that it would not overflow onto the floor if operating normally and that the machine was not operating properly when he was at plaintiff's residence in the fall following the installation and similarly a few days before the trial. He contends that the cause of the difficulty on both occasions was that the dial regulating the amount of salt used in the softening process had been improperly set. Defendant asserts that the court erred in instructing the jury that plaintiff could recover if defendant was negligent in the installation or servicing of the water-softening unit. From the record it appears quite clear that defendant tried his case in part on the theory that any damages sustained by plaintiff were the result of his own negligence, something not pleaded as a defense in the answer. This led the court to say to the jury: *389 The court thereafter instructed fully on express and implied warranty, saying in part: This was followed by a statement to the following effect: The reference to negligence in the instructions came into the case because defendant himself injected that issue in charging plaintiff with contributory negligence, and the court simply balanced the matter by explaining the meaning of negligence and its effect should the jury find from the evidence as a whole that there had been negligent conduct on the part of either plaintiff or defendant and his agents. The liability of the seller to the buyer for negligence was very largely superseded by strict liability for breach of warranty under the Uniform Sales Act. Thus a breach of warranty giving rise to strict liability does not depend upon any knowledge of defects on the part of the seller or any negligence. Prosser, Torts (3 ed.) § 95. It is clear that lack of negligence on the part of a seller will not prevent a buyer from recovering for breach of warranty. This, however, is not to say that a breach of warranty may not arise from negligence. Defendant asserts that the court erred in informing the jury that breach of implied warranty could arise by faulty installation of the unit. Essentially, the question raised by this contention seems to be whether the installation of the unit was a part of the sale covered by the warranty. In Vold, Sales (2 ed.) § 1, p. 4, the author states: In the case of Hoye v. Century Builders, Inc., 52 Wash. 2d 830, 833, 329 P.2d 474, 476, it was held: The rule thus seems to be that the warranty applies where the sale involves not only a transfer of a chattel but also *390 some related service, such as construction. We think the rule applies to this case. Plaintiff had never owned a water softener before and he knew nothing about how to install or operate one when he made the purchase from defendant. We think it clear from the record that plaintiff was purchasing an installed water softener. In the case of Luther v. Standard Conveyor Co., 252 Minn. 135, 141, 89 N.W.2d 179, 184, this court said: From the statement in the Luther case it may well be reasoned that plaintiff had a right to try the water softener. The jury could properly find a breach of an implied warranty of fitness in view of the difficulty plaintiff experienced in his use of the water softener. Minn.St.1961, § 512.49, applicable here, provides: Defendant contends that plaintiff did not give notice of breach of warranty and intent to claim damages within a reasonable time, citing Truesdale v. Friedman, 270 Minn. 109, 132 N.W.2d 854, as controlling in his favor on this issue. The Truesdale case holds that the time when the buyer becomes aware or should have become aware of the claimed defect fixes the time from which the delay commences and from which the reasonableness or unreasonableness of the delay must be determined. We held in that case that a delay in notification from 12 to 23 months would be unreasonable as a matter of law when the buyer is aware, or should be aware, of the defect. There was no such delay in notification in the instant case. It first came within 2 weeks after the purchase had been made and was continuous thereafter running over a period of a year during which plaintiff cooperated with defendant in trying to remedy the defects before finally, at the end of that time, notifying defendant that unless the water softener could be placed in working order as warranted, he should install a properly functioning softener or return to plaintiff the purchase price. There is no merit in defendant's claim that notice was not given within a reasonable time, and the requirement of the statute with respect to notice was sufficiently complied with. In Inland Products Corp. v. Donovan, Inc., 240 Minn. 365, 374, 62 N.W.2d 211, 219, this court held: The same is true here. In Beck v. Spindler, 256 Minn. 543, 558, 99 N.W.2d 670, 680, this court, after referring to Minn.St.1961, § 512.15 (1), stated: Defendant also contends that the court erred in instructing the jury on the measure of damages. The court said: A search of the record reveals no evidence that plaintiff at any time returned the water-softening unit. Thus it would appear that his claim comes under Minn. St.1961, § 512.69(1)(b), which reads as follows: What constitutes damages is set out in Minn.St.1961, § 512.69(6), in the following words: In Despatch Oven Co. v. Rauenhorst, 229 Minn. 436, 444, 40 N.W.2d 73, 79, this court held: While the court's instruction on the measure of damages might have gone more fully into detail, we nevertheless think it sufficient upon the record herein and in light of the amount of the verdict. We reach the conclusion that the instructions, when read as a whole and construed together, contain no prejudicial error. Shastid v. Shue, 247 Minn. 314, 77 N.W.2d 273; Nathan v. St. Paul Mutual Ins. Co., 251 Minn. 74, 87, 86 N.W.2d 503, 513. At the end of the instructions defendant made no objection to the instruction on damages. We have fully considered all the assignments of error and are convinced that there was no prejudicial error. The evidence amply sustains the jury's verdict. Affirmed. PETERSON, J., not having been a member of this court at the time of the submission, took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.