Title: Min-A-Con Equipment Co. v. TMK Construction Co.
Citation: 102 Ariz. 24, 424 P.2d 152
Docket Number: 8140
State: Arizona
Issuer: Arizona Supreme Court
Date: March 1, 1967

102 Ariz. 24 (1967) 424 P.2d 152 MIN-A-CON EQUIPMENT CO., a corporation, Appellant, v. T.M.K. CONSTRUCTION CO., a corporation, Appellee. No. 8140. Supreme Court of Arizona, In Banc. March 1, 1967. Rehearing Denied March 28, 1967. Jennings, Strouss, Salmon &amp; Trask, and John S. Hobbs, Phoenix, for appellant. McKesson, Renaud &amp; Cook, and Fred J. Pain, Jr., Phoenix, for appellee. STRUCKMEYER, Justice. This appeal is from a judgment entered on a jury's verdict in favor of T.M.K. Construction Company against Min-A-Con Equipment Company. The complaint, in effect, stated a cause of action on implied warranty under A.R.S. § 44-215, subsec. 2, asserting that four tires purchased from the Min-A-Con Equipment Company for use on two earth-moving "Euclid" scrapers were not of merchantable quality. It appears that in 1959 T.M.K. purchased two "Euclid" scrapers from Min-A-Con. On the sale of this type of equipment a customer can specify the make of tires it wants, and T.M.K. did specify that the scrapers be equipped with those manufactured by the General Tire Company. Of eight tires sold, four were claimed to be defective in that the inside lining separated from the cord, rendering the tires incapable of holding air, a defect which could not be repaired. The instruments of sale specifically set forth in writing two disclaimers of warranties. The sales order provided: The conditional sales contract provided: It is plain beyond equivocation that Min-A-Con, the dealer, disclaimed any warranties other than the express warranties of the manufacturers of the equipment sold. The manufacturer of the scrapers did not warrant the tires. Its warranty provided: There is no evidence as to the nature or extent, if any, of the warranties by the *25 General Tire Company. Leonard W. Beck, president of Min-A-Con Equipment Company, testified: The decision in this case is controlled by our decision in O.S. Stapley Co. v. F.O. Newby, 57 Ariz. 24, 110 P.2d 547, where we said: If the General Tire Company made no warranties, then Min-A-Con made no warranties, express or implied. If General Tire Company in fact did warrant the tires, there is still no proof of their nature or extent or that the defects in these tires were embraced therein. Since Min-A-Con expressly limited its warranties to those of the manufacturer, the court below erred in failing to grant Min-A-Con's motion for a directed verdict and erred in entering judgment in favor of T.M.K. The judgment is vacated with directions to enter judgment in favor in Min-A-Con and for its costs. BERNSTEIN, C.J., McFARLAND, V.C.J., and UDALL, and LOCKWOOD, JJ., concur.