Opinion ID: 1658703
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: law failure to prove defect

Text: Fedders claims the Boatrights failed to prove any breach of warranty in that the fault could just as well have been a faulty installation as the product itself. The record clearly reveals what the problem was with this heat pump: it would freeze up and quit heating in cold, and especially in below freezing weather. Unfortunately, we will never know from this record what in fact caused the problem. Fedders, in the best position to answer this question  after all it manufactured the heat pump  never saw fit to have any of its factory representatives inspect it and answer the question. It takes no extra amount of intelligence, however, to fathom that one of the two quite ordinary purposes for which this unit was purchased was to adequately heat the Boatright residence in the winter, and certainly no more cerebratrion to ascertain the unit, for some reason, was unfit for this purpose. The Boatrights at least proved a breach of an implied warranty of merchantability, about which more will be said later. There are two answers, then, to Fedders contention. First, the Boatrights having proved a breach of the implied warranty of merchantability, it was the obligation of Fedders to prove it was the dealer's fault, not its own, that the unit was not fit for its ordinary heating purpose. It offered no such proof. Second, such proof would have been unavailing in any event. Fedders manufactured and placed on the market a machine which required personnel of special skill and knowledge to install. Fedders contracted with and constituted OH & CC as its authorized dealer, the firm in Oxford to sell and install its machines in residences. Fedders represented to the public that OH & CC was its local dealer, and the firm which could install its equipment. OH & CC carried the Fedders sign, presumably, showing it was an authorized dealer. It could even be said that the proper installation of the machine was but a continuation of the manufacturing process, because until finally installed in place the unit had no usefulness. There is no contention that the Boatrights in any way caused or increased the defect in the unit. The defect could only have been caused by one of two entities: Fedders or OH & CC. Since manifestly there was a defect for which the Boatrights were blameless, should Fedders be permitted to escape its responsibility under the facts of this case by placing the blame on its dealer? Or, put another way, assuming the fault in the machine's performance arose from faulty installation by OH & CC, rather than at Fedder's manufacturing plant, who should have to pay for such a mistake, Fedders or the Boatrights? Our answer is that Fedders should bear the burden. Having not only placed a machine which required special skill to install, but the dealer authorized to make such installation, on the market, Fedders should be estopped to deny responsibility for errors committed by its dealer in the installation. Crocker v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 346 So.2d 921 (Miss. 1977), cited by Fedders is distinguishable. There is nothing in the record in that case to suggest that the installation of an electric stove, which allegedly was defective and caused a house to catch on fire, required special skill or expertise to install in the house, or further if such were the case, that the defendant had an authorized dealer who made such installations. We addressed a similar contention to Fedders in Volkswagen of America, Inc. v. Novak, 418 So.2d 801 (Miss. 1982), wherein the defendant manufacturer sought to escape liability under the UCC by claiming that its dealer, not itself, was the seller. We held that under the facts of that case the manufacturer, as well as the dealer, was a seller under Miss. Code Ann. § 75-2-103(1)(d) (1972) because the sale and warranty blended into a single unit at the time of sale, and because such sales are usually made, not only upon the make and model of the automobile, but also upon the assurance of the manufacturer, through its warranty, that the vehicle will conform to the standards of merchantability. P. 804. Fedders does not seek to escape liability under the claim it was not the seller, but seeks to require the consumer to prove the problem with the equipment arose solely from its manufacture as opposed to its installation. In Royal Lincoln-Mercury Sales v. Wallace, 415 So.2d 1024, 1028 (Miss. 1982), we held the manufacturer bore responsibility to see that its authorized dealer properly made repairs necessitated by defects covered by its express warranty. It also follows that a manufacturer which puts on the market a machine which requires special skill and knowledge to install before it has any utility whatever is responsible for seeing that its authorized dealer who sold it did in fact properly install the unit. In Royal Lincoln we held that the dealer, insofar as making the repairs of defects covered by warranty of the manufacturer, was the agent of the manufacturer. Here we hold that OH & CC, insofar as installing this machine to a properly operating unit, was likewise agent for Fedders. This heat pump was not sold directly by Fedders to a consumer, with the consumer having the responsibility for its proper installation, but through an authorized dealer which made the installation.