Opinion ID: 2520985
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The motion for directed verdict should have been granted.

Text: American Honda argues that its motion for directed verdict should have been granted because the remedy of revocation may only be granted against the seller, and not the manufacturer. American Honda says that because K & K Motors was not acting in privity or as an agent in the sale of the van, it may not be held liable as a seller under the theory of revocation. American Honda bases this argument on the erroneous assumption that revocation was the only remedy sought as against American Honda. The Powers alleged two causes of action in addition to revocation breach of express warranty and breach of implied warranty of merchantabilityunder which the remedy is damages, not revocation. I.C. § 28-2-714 (The measure of damages for breach of warranty is the difference at the time and place of acceptance between the value of the goods accepted and the value they would have had if they had been as warranted, unless special circumstances show proximate damages of a different amount.) Griffith v. Latham Motors, Inc., 128 Idaho 356, 361, 913 P.2d 572, 577 (1996) (When a buyer has goods that do not conform to express or implied warranties, the buyer keeps the goods and sues for the difference in the value of the goods as received and the value of the goods as warranted plus, in a proper case, any incidental damages and consequential damages.) (citing I.C. § 28-2-714). Contrary to the position of American Honda, the Powers sought remedies besides that of revocation of acceptance in the second amended complaint. The judgment entered by the district court awarded damages against American Honda under breach of implied warranty, not under revocation, and did not provide for the return of the vehicle to American Honda. The jury instruction for revocation made it clear that the jury could only grant revocation against the dealer, K & K Motors. In addition, the jury found that revocation was not available against any party. The issue is whether the district court should have submitted the theory of an implied warranty to the jury. American Honda maintains that there was no evidence to support a verdict against it on the issue of breach of implied warranty. Idaho Code section 28-2-314 provides minimum standards for merchantability. Goods to be merchantable must be at least such as (a) pass without objection in the trade under the contract description; and ... (c) are fit for the ordinary purposes for which such goods are used. I.C. § 28-2-314. It is expected that goods be generally acceptable quality under the description used in the contract. Dickerson v. Mountain View Equip. Co., 109 Idaho 711, 714, 710 P.2d 621, 624 (Ct.App.1985). The test for determining the breach of an implied warranty of merchantability, is to examine whether the goods were unmerchantable at the time of delivery. Id. at 716, 710 P.2d at 626. Even if applicable to American Honda, the implied warranty cannot be read to require the distribution of a mouse proof vehicle. There is no showing of how the mice entered the vehicle. The theoretical defect cannot be identified. Only the fact that mice entered the vehicle in some fashion was proved. There was insufficient evidence to submit the issue to the jury. In view of this conclusion, the issues of cost and attorney fees raised by the Powers are moot.