Opinion ID: 27793
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Did the district court calculate the correct redhibition remedy under Louisiana law?

Text: 39 Both parties agree that Louisiana law is applicable to the Plaintiffs' redhibition claim. Redhibition is an avoidance of sale on account of a defect in the manufacture or design of a thing sold which renders it either absolutely useless, or its use so inconvenient and imperfect, that it must be supposed that the buyer would not have purchased it, had he known of the vice. La. Civ.Code Ann. art. 2520 (West 1973). 21 Typically, the remedy contemplated in a redhibitory action under Louisiana law 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. Lindy Invs., LP v. Shakertown Corp., 209 F.3d 802, 806 (5th Cir.2000) (citing Capitol City Leasing Corp. v. Hill, 404 So.2d 935, 939 (La.1981)). However, when a redhibitory defect merely diminishes the product's value or utility rather than rendering the product totally unfit for its intended use, a party can recover quanti minoris damages for a reduction in the purchase price without having to return the defective product. Id. 40 The trial court has discretion to award either rescission or quanti minoris in a successful redhibitory action, but cannot award both. Id. (internal citations and quotations omitted). When a trial court awards rescission, the appropriate measure of damages is restoration of the purchase price, plus reimbursement of reasonable expenses occasioned by the sale and expenses incurred in the preservation of the item, see, e.g., La. Civ.Code Ann. art. 2531 (West 1973); Poché v. Bayliner Marine Corp., 632 So.2d 1170, 1174 (La.App. 5 Cir. 1994), 22 minus any appropriate discount for the value the buyer received from use of the item, see La. Civ.Code Ann. art. 2531 (West 1973); Alexander v. Burroughs, 359 So.2d 607, 610 (La.1978). 23 See also Lindy Invs., 209 F.3d at 809. When a trial court makes a quanti minoris award, the appropriate measure of damages is the difference between the actual selling price and the price that a reasonable buyer and seller would have agreed upon if they had both known of the defects. See Fly, 690 So.2d at 763. Factors to consider in making a quanti minoris award include the number of defects, the frequency and length of attempted repairs of the defects, the inconvenience associated with the repairs, the actual damage, if any, caused by the defects, the actual cost of repairs and the curtailed use of the thing due to its defects. Id.; accord Robert v. Bayou Bernard Marine, Inc., 514 So.2d 540, 546-47 (La.Ct.App.1987). 41 The parties dispute whether the district court calculated the appropriate measure of damages in the instant case. Indeed, the parties apparently disagree as to the type of award (rescission or quanti minoris ) that the district court was attempting to make. The Defendants contend that the district court was attempting to award a rescission and that the court thus erred in failing to instruct the Plaintiffs to return the boat to the Defendants. The Plaintiffs argue in response that the district court was actually attempting to award quanti minoris damages (i.e., a reduction in the purchase price); thus the district court correctly determined that the Plaintiffs were not required to return the boat to the Defendants. 42 The district court's factual findings and conclusions of law reveal that the court awarded the Plaintiffs the market value of the boat before the accident, less salvage value, if any. The district court apparently relied upon cases addressing the measure of damages for destruction of an automobile or boat by a third party tortfeasor, including Phelps v. White, 645 So.2d 698 (La.App. 3 Cir.1994), and Coleman v. Victor, 326 So.2d 344 (La.1976), in calculating this redhibition award. This conceptualization of the damage award ignores the unique nature of a redhibition claim. 43 Redhibition is an avoidance of sale. Accordingly, the goal of the remedy is to return the injured party to the position he or she was in before the sale occurred, not to the position he or she was in before his or her injury, as in a tort remedy. See Lindy Invs., 209 F.3d at 806. These distinct inquiries will not necessarily produce the same measure of damages. For example, it appears in the instant case that the district court included the value of the Patins' improvements to the boat, as well as any post-sale appreciation or depreciation in the value of the boat, in calculating the market value of the boat. However, improvements made by the buyer to a purchased item and post-sale fluctuations in the market value of that item are not necessarily relevant in calculating a damage award pursuant to a redhibition claim, as that award is designed to rescind the sale and accordingly revolves around the purchase price of the boat. 44 While it appears that the Plaintiffs are correct that the district court was actually attempting to award some form of quanti minoris -type damages in the instant case rather than a complete rescission of sale, the reasoning expressed by the district court in its conclusions of law indicate that the court most likely erred in its calculation of the quanti minoris award. Because the district court's factual findings do not enable this court to determine what the correct award should be, a remand to the district court is necessary to recalculate the appropriate award.