Opinion ID: 1719950
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: manufacturer's undertaking avenger corporation [3]

Text: THERE ARE NO WARRANTIES EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED AND PARTICULARLY THERE ARE NO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE MADE BY AVENGER CORPORATION FOR ITS PRODUCTS. AVENGER CORPORATION, as the manufacturer, in lieu thereof undertakes and agrees that the product identified on the Pre-Delivery and Acceptance Declaration (reverse side) was free of defects in material and workmanship at the time of its delivery to the dealer and the initial user and owner; and If the attached Pre-Delivery and Acceptance Declaration is properly filled out and returned to Avenger Corporation at Nappanee, Indiana, within five days of delivery of this trailer to the original user; and If such Avenger product or its component parts (other than tires) shall fail within one year from the date of delivery to the original user because the product or component part was defective when installed; and If the owner-user will return the trailer to a service facility authorized by Avenger Corporation within fifty-two (52) weeks after initial delivery, Avenger Corporation will in the method it determines to be necessary replace, or repair, at its sole option any such defective product or component at its own cost and expense. THERE ARE NO OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, AND NO OTHER OBLIGATIONS, EITHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING SPECIFICALLY ANY OBLIGATION FOR INCIDENTAL EXPENSES OF ANY NATURE UNDERTAKEN BY AVENGER CORPORATION AS THE MANUFACTURER. (Emphasis added.)  Tires are warranted separately by their respective manufacturer through their dealer. See separate warranty which accompanies the trailer. [3] The language used in the document constitutes a warranty . . . that the product . . . was free of defects in material and workmanship at the time of its delivery . . . [4] Because this express warranty conflicts with the preceding disclaimer of all warranties, the language of express warranty must control. White and Summers, supra, at sec. 12-3, p. 352. Official Comment 1 to sec. 2-316, UCC (sec. 402.316, Stats., supra ) states that that section: . . . is designed principally to deal with those frequent clauses in sales contracts which seek to exclude `all warranties, express or implied.' It seeks to protect a buyer from unexpected and unbargained language of disclaimer by denying effect to such language when inconsistent with language of express warranty. . . . The undertaking in the instant case therefore constitutes a warranty that the motorhome was free of defects at the time of delivery, subject to whatever limitation is effected by the limitation of remedies language contained therein. [5] The damages which would otherwise be available upon a breach of contract may be altered or limited by the parties pursuant to sec. 402.719, Stats. [6] This section gives the parties substantial latitude to fashion their own remedies for breach of the contract. However, the UCC disfavors limitations on remedies and provides for their deletion where they would effectively deprive a party of reasonable protection against breach. Chemetron Corporation v. McLouth Steel Corporation (D.C. Ill. 1974), 381 Fed. Supp. 245, 250, affirmed 522 Fed.2d 469 (7th Cir. 1975). The drafters of the UCC recognized that: . . . it is of the very essence of a sales contract that at least minimum adequate remedies be available. If the parties intend to conclude a contract for sale within this Article they must accept the legal consequence that there be at least a fair quantum of remedy for breach of the obligations or duties outlined in the contract . . . Official Comment 1, sec. 2-719, UCC; accord: Conte v. Dwan Lincoln-Mercury, Inc., 172 Conn. 112, 374 Atl.2d 144 (1976); Wilson Trading Corporation v. David Ferguson, Ltd., 23 N.Y.2d 398, 244 N.E.2d 685 (1968). [4] Accordingly, any clause purporting to limit remedies in an unconscionable manner will be deleted, making the ordinary UCC remedies available as though the stricken clause had never existed. Official Comment 1, sec. 2-719, UCC. In addition, sec. 402.719 (2), Stats., provides:  (2) Where circumstances cause an exclusive or limited remedy to fail of its essential purpose, remedy may be had as provided in this code. This provision dictates that: . . . [W]here an apparently fair and reasonable clause because of circumstances fails in its purpose or operates to deprive either party of the substantial value of the bargain, it must give way to the general remedy provisions of this Article [Chapter 402, Stats.]. Official Comment 1, sec. 2-719, UCC. The warranty in the present case, like most motor vehicle warranties, limited the buyer's remedies to repair or replacement of defective parts. Specifically, the undertaking provides: . . . Avenger Corporation will in the method it determines to be necessary replace or repair, at its sole option any such defective product or component at its own cost and expense. THERE ARE NO OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, AND NO OTHER OBLIGATIONS, EITHER EXPRESS OR LIMITED, INCLUDING SPECIFICALLY ANY OBLIGATION FOR INCIDENTAL EXPENSES OF ANY NATURE UNDERTAKEN BY AVENGER CORPORATON AS THE MANUFACTURER. Such a limitation is not, on its face, unconscionable. Cox Motor Car Company v. Castle (Ky. App. 1966), 402 S.W. 2d 429; Potomac Electric Pow. Co. v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp. (D.C. 1974), 385 Fed. Supp. 572. Sec. 402.719 (2), Stats., specifically recognizes the possibility of such a limitation. [5, 6] However, where the limited remedy fails of its essential purpose, the limitation will be disregarded and ordinary UCC remedies will be available. Sec. 402.719 (2), Stats. The purpose of an exclusive remedy of repair or replacement, from the buyer's standpoint, is to give him goods which conform to the contractin this case, a motorhome substantially free of defectswithin a reasonable time [7] after a defect is discovered. Conte v. Dwan Lincoln-Mercury, supra ; Beal v. General Motors Corp. (D.C. Del. 1973), 354 Fed. Supp. 423; Moore v. Howard Pontiac-American, Inc., (Tenn. App. 1972), 492 S.W.2d 227. . . . [E]very buyer has the right to assume his new car, with the exception of minor adjustments, will be `mechanically new and factory furnished, operate perfectly, and be free of substantial defects' . . . After the purchase of an automobile, the same should be put in good running condition; that is the seller does not have an unlimited time for the performance of the obligation to replace and repair parts. The buyer of an automobile is not bound to permit the seller to tinker with the article indefinitely in the hope that it may ultimately be made to comply with the warranty. 46 Am. Jur. Sales §732; 77 C.J.S. Sales §340. At some point in time, if major problems continue to plague the automobile, it must become obvious to all people that a particular vehicle simply cannot be repaired or parts replaced so that the same is made free of defect. . . . Orange Motors of Coral Gables v. Dade Co. Dairies, 258 So.2d 319, 320, 321 (Fla. App. 1972), quoting Zabriskie Chevrolet, Inc. v. Smith, 99 N.J. Super. 441, 240 Atl.2d 195 (1968). Accord, General Motors Corporation v. Earnest, 279 Ala. 299, 184 So. 2d 811, 814 (1966). [7] Although individual nonconformities may not be substantial in and of themselves, the obligation to repair or replace parts may fail of its essential purpose where the cumulative effect of all the nonconformities substantially impairs the value of the goods to the buyer. Zoss v. Royal Chevrolet, Inc., 11 U.C.C. Rep. 527, 532 (Ind. Super. 1972). [8] Where the seller is given reasonable opportunity to correct the defect or defects, and the vehicle nevertheless fails to operate as should a new vehicle free of defects, the limited remedy fails of its essential purpose. See, Soo Line Railroad Co. v. Fruehauf Corp. (8th Cir. 1977), 547 Fed.2d 1365; Ehlers v. Chrysler Motor Corporation (S.D. 1975), 226 N.W.2d 157; Kohlenberger, Inc. v. Tyson's Foods, Inc., 256 Ark. 584, 510 S.W.2d 555 (1974); Beal v. General Motors Corp., supra ; Ford Motor Company v. Gunn, 123 Ga. App. 550, 181 S.E.2d 694 (1971). The buyer may then invoke any of the remedies available under the UCC, including the right to revoke acceptance of the goods, under sec. 2-608 of the UCC (sec. 402.608, Stats.). Moore v. Howard Pontiac-American, Inc., supra ; Jacobs v. Metro Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc., 125 Ga. App. 462, 188 S.E.2d 250 (1972). [9] In the present case the jury determined that the plaintiffs had cause to revoke the acceptance of the motorhome. The verdict of a jury will not be disturbed by this court if, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, any credible evidence fairly admits of an inference supporting the verdict. Nolden v. Mutual Benefit Life Ins. Co., 80 Wis.2d 353, 359, 259 N.W.2d 75 (1977). Here there was ample credible evidence to support the jury's implicit finding that the defendants had failed to provide the plaintiffs with a motorhome substantially free of material defects within a reasonable time. The testimony favorable to the verdict showed the following: Mr. Murray experienced problems with the lights and battery of the vehicle on the day he took possession and, although repairs were attempted, the lights continued to dim, the electrical system went dead on several occasions, and the generator did not charge the battery properly. The wiring of an outdoor light short-circuited where it passed through a sharp-edged metal wall. There were problems with the clock. There was an exposed, allegedly non-energized, 120-volt wire coming from the main electrical panel. Plaintiffs' expert witness testified that the wiring in the 12-volt electrical system was of an insufficient gauge for the type of fuses used by the manufacturer, that this wiring was not in conformity with the applicable electrical code, and that there was a danger of overheating in the electrical system. The original gas tank and an auxiliary gas tank, installed by KOA at the Murrays' request prior to delivery, were both apparently improperly vented. As a result, it was extremely difficult to fill the tanks; gasoline would spew out of the tanks when the caps were removed; and gasoline fumes came up into the passenger compartment. Mr. Murray testified that on one occasion, service station attendants were able to put only twenty cents' worth of gasoline into both tanks. Apparently as a result of problems with the carburetor, the vehicle would stall. Dirt and soldering flux were found in the fuel filter, which was replaced, as was the fuel pump. There were problems with the air suspension system. There was testimony that this resulted in uneven distribution of weight on the tandem set of wheels in the rear of the vehicle, putting insufficient weight on the front wheels and causing steering problems. Repairs were made to the suspension system, but the steering problems persisted. Mr. Murray complained that the front brakes were not operating properly, and despite adjustments, had difficulty with the front wheels. KOA apparently remedied various problems with the furnace and refrigerator, with an oil filter, and with a rattling engine cowling. KOA corrected the LP fuel tank gauge, which, as installed at the factory, indicated full when the tank was empty, and vice versa; KOA also supplied a missing handle for the tank and drained water which was inside the tank when it left the factory. Unusual pressure caused a water line to come uncoupled. Mr. Murray advised KOA about this problem but repaired it himself. There was also testimony regarding problems with folding seats, the furnace fan, the exhaust fan above the stove, a splash board which came unfastened, and the oven door, which fell off. Although there was conflicting testimony as to whether these parts were defective, the testimony of the Murrays with regard to these problems was not inherently incredible. It is the position of the defendants that KOA successfully repaired every defect complained of by the Murrays, and that the Murrays were satisfied with the repair service. The evidence on this point was conflicting, and the jury could reasonably have believed Mr. Murray's testimony that he had never told KOA he was satisfied with the vehicle and that, on the contrary, he had repeatedly sought to return the troublesome Avenger and to recover his purchase price and the motorhome he had traded in. [10] Although the Murrays agreed that KOA had never refused to attempt a requested repair, this testimony does not affect their right to revoke acceptance. The limited remedy of repair or replacement of defective parts fails of its essential purpose whenever, despite reasonable opportunity for repair, the goods are not restored to a nondefective condition within a reasonable time, whether or not the failure to do so is willful. Soo Line Railroad Co. v. Fruehauf Corp., supra, at 1371, fn. 7; Beal v. General Motors Corp., supra, at 427. In July, 1974, the Murrays traveled to Colorado in the motorhome. They experienced continued problems filling the gasoline tanks. At one point they were forced to leave the vehicle to avoid gasoline fumes which filled the interior. Gasoline spewed from the tanks when the tank caps were removed, and they were asked to leave one service station after the attendant was thus doused with gasoline. Mr. Murray testified that the vehicle stalled while ascending one mountain and that the rear brakes malfunctioned while descending another. On the return trip, the electrical system malfunctioned while the Murrays were inside a South Dakota restaurant. Lights came on; smoke filled the vehicle, and wiring was burned. Defendants' expert agreed that this fire may have been caused by a short circuit where a wire passed through the sharp-edged metal wall of the vehicle. After this incident, the electrical system did not charge properly, and the plaintiffs were unable to use the air-conditioner. The plaintiffs opened the windows, and several screens blew out. The electrical system went out completely in Ellsworth, Wisconsin, and the plaintiffs traveled the rest of the way to their home near Menomonie, Wisconsin, by automobile. This evidence amply supports the conclusion that, despite reasonable opportunity for repair, the defendants had failed to provide the Murrays with goods conforming to the contractthat is, with a safe and substantially non-defective motorhomewithin a reasonable time after purchase. The limited remedy therefore failed of its essential purpose, and the remedy of revocation became available. Also, under the warranty, Holiday Rambler was to bear the expense of repairs or replacements. Nevertheless, they initially insisted the Murrays travel to Indiana, at their own expense, to pick up the motorhome after it had been repaired. KOA argues that the trial court erred in failing to submit to the jury a requested special verdict question asking whether the plaintiffs were obliged to permit the defendants to correct any nonconformities. KOA argues that by refusing to submit this question, the trial court removed from the jury the necessary question whether the limited remedy had failed of its essential purpose. This argument is not persuasive. [11, 12] The form of the special verdict is within the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be interfered with if the material issues of fact are encompassed within the questions asked and appropriate instructions are given. Naden v. Johnson, 61 Wis.2d 375, 382, 212 N.W.2d 585 (1973). In the instant case, the special verdict questions submitted to the jury implicitly encompassed the question whether the limited remedy had failed of its essential purpose, and no objections are raised with regard to the trial court's jury instructions on the plaintiffs' right to revoke acceptance. The jury was asked: . . . Were there any nonconformities in the motorhome as delivered to the plaintiffs that the plaintiffs reasonably assumed would be cured and were not reasonably cured?  (Emphasis added.) The jury answered yes, indicating that repairs were not made as required by the limited warranty. In response to other questions, the jury found that the nonconformities substantially impaired the value of the motorhome; that the plaintiffs had cause to revoke acceptance; that the vehicle was negligently manufactured by Holiday Rambler and negligently modified or repaired by KOA, and that the negligence of both defendants substantially impaired the value of the motorhome. By these findings the jury determined that the limited remedy of repair or replacement had failed. In Riley v. Ford Motor Company (5th Cir. 1971), 442 Fed.2d 670, the jury had not been specifically instructed to determine whether an auto manufacturer's obligation to replace or repair defective parts had failed of its essential purpose. However, Riley, supra, at 673, held that a finding that the remedy had failed was implicit in the jury's verdict, where the jury had been instructed to determine: . . . whether `the defendant, Ford Motor Company, has breached its warranty and [whether] they were given a reasonable opportunity to repair it and they didn't [,]' and where the amount of the verdict showed that the jury had not given effect to the limited remedy. Following the same rationale, we conclude that the jury in the instant case found that the limited remedy had failed. There was abundant credible evidence to support this finding. The plaintiffs were therefore entitled to avail themselves of the remedies available under the UCC, including the right to revoke acceptance pursuant to sec. 402.608, Stats.