Opinion ID: 768363
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Louisiana Law of Redhibition

Text: 9 Redhibition is the avoidance of a sale of a defective product when the defect has rendered the product useless, or its use so inconvenient and imperfect, that the buyer would not have purchased it had he known of the defect. See LA. CIV. CODE art. 2520 (1870). In general, the law requires the purchaser to tender the defective product to the seller before filing any action in redhibition. See Blue v. Schoen, 556 So.2d 1364, 1370 (La. App. 5th Cir. 1990); Vance v. Emerson, 420 So.2d 1032, 1035 (La. App. 5th Cir. 1982). Under the tender requirement, the buyer need not physically return the product prior to suit; rather, he may satisfy the requirement simply by offering to return the product for repair and/or replacement. See Mitchellv. Popiwchak, 677 So.2d 1050, 1054 (La. App. 4th Cir. 1996). 10 Typically, the remedy contemplated in a redhibitory action is full rescission of the sale. Rescission requires the seller to return the purchase price and the buyer to return the thing purchased, thus placing the parties in the positions they held before the sale. See Capitol City Leasing Corp. v. Hill, 404 So.2d 935, 939 (La. 1981). This return requirement, though involving the eventual tender of the defective product to the seller, is the end result of a successful rescission and should not be confused with the procedural pre-filing tender requirement mentioned above. See Vance, 420 So.2d at 1035. 11 Louisiana courts typically invoke rescissionary remedies in redhibition cases where the product is totally unfit for its intended use. When a redhibitory defect merely diminishes the product's value or utility, however, a party can recover quanti minoris damages for a reduction in the purchase price without having to return the defective product. See Blue, 556 So.2d at 1369. The trial court has discretion to award either rescission or quanti minoris in a successful redhibitory action, see LA. CIV. CODE art. 2543 (1870); but cannot award both. See Grimes v. Alenco Window Co., 638 So. 2d 1147, 1149 (La. App. 1st Cir. 1994) ([the buyer] is not entitled to recover for both the return of the purchase price and for replacement of the defective item.). We must therefore determine which one of these two remedies is appropriate. 12 The trial record clearly indicates that Appellants sought a full rescission. The district court's pre-trial order indicates that plaintiffs contend they are entitled to a rescission in the sale. Although the pre-trial order mentions the possibility that the shingles may be mechanically fastened to the plywood in order to prevent delamination, the parties downplayed this option as unworkable. Moreover, in a handwritten amendment to the section of the pre-trial stipulation marked LISTING OF CONTESTED ISSUES OF LAW the parties struck a question asking, If a redhibitory defect exists, whether plaintiffs are entitled to a rescission of the sale, or merely a reduction of the sales price. Judging from the single remaining reference to rescission and the striking of the on-point question of law, we conclude that as of the beginning of trial, Appellants sought rescission. 5 13 Turning to the jury's award, we note that the amounts awarded for rescission of sale/reduction in purchase price equal the stipulated purchase prices for the panels installed at both complexes. We agree with the trial court that the jury's awarding of the exact purchase price constitutes a proper rescission of sale. That Appellants might now be required to live up to their end of the rescissionary bargain and return the shingles should come as no surprise to them. 6