Court Opinion

ID: 9791667
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 02:15:49.149148+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:37:37.823614
License: Public Domain

PIENRIOD, Justice
(dissenting):
I dissent, and in doing so, concede that the statement of facts recounted in the main opinion substantially is accurate so *170far as it goes. However, I think the opinion is more significant for what it does not say, appearing to tell hut half the story reflected by all of the conceded facts, resulting in but half opinion and a wholly erroneous conclusion.
It is suggested that the main opinion is faulted by I) choosing facts taken out of full context, which, absent equally significant facts plausibly but inaccurately support its conclusion; by II) raising a point on appeal for the first time, which was advanced by no one in either brief or argument, and III) by citing authorities neither espoused by anyone else, cited by anyone else, or claimed to be authority in this case by anyone else.
As to I) : The main opinion does not tell us that after “plaintiff inquired as to the expense and was shown a price quotation schedule, indicating $169.50,” he nonetheless signed a work order not only calling for the $169.50, but for required parts, towing and sales tax charges, totalling $384.77, —all of his own choosing and voluntary accomplishment, and that he actually paid for the job by voluntarily executing and delivering a 24-month deferred time installment note for $430.08. This he did not have to do. It was completely inconsistent with his assertion that he relied on newspaper ads that represented that the whole job would be done for $169.50. Before knowingly obligating himself on the note, he could have walked away from the deal instead of walking into a contract.
The main opinion does not tell us that after plaintiff had driven a little over 5,000 miles, the defendant, without any charge, serviced the car and made necessary adjustments. With only a few miles left to take advantage of the 12,000 mile guarantee (plaintiff having driven 11,583 miles), plaintiff returned to defendant complaining that the car was not operating satisfactorily. The main opinion does not say that after defendant told plaintiff that repairs would be necessary, the plaintiff, in his complaint, distinctly stated that when defendant would not undertake the repairs “without plaintiff’s authorization and agreement to pay for same," the plaintiff further maintained that “the trouble should be corrected at defendant’s expense,” and towed his car away without any offer whatever to pay the 65'% which he himself had agreed to pay under the circumstances here, by actually signing the very written guarantee agreement which he now concedes in his own complaint was not binding.
The facts related above, not accounted for in the main opinion, were facts that the plaintiff himself alleged in his own complaint. They were so inconsistent with any theory that plaintiff had stated a cause of action either ex contractu or ex malefi-cio, as to burden the rules of procedure with a questionable unreason. It appears *171to me to be a classic case for the application of a summary judgment based on the absence of any litigable genuine issue of fact.
As to II) : The thrust of the main opinion is bottomed on a criminal statute — Title 76-4-1, U.C.A.1953, —having to do with false advertising. Nowhere in plaintiff’s brief or oral argument can be found any citation or suggestion of anybody’s reliance on this statute, which this court now refers to in order to reinforce an erroneous conclusion in favor of plaintiff. Defendant has had no opportunity whatever to meet any claim based on a violation of any statute, and it would seem to be a bit disquieting for defendant to be required to meet this unexpected fait accompli by the circuitous and often discouraging route of a petition for rehearing.
As to III): The main opinion, not the plaintiff or anyone else, quotes Ritholz v. City of Salt Lake, as authority for its conclusion, saying that in that case “this court observed that if an advertiser actually overreaches or deceives, he is in violation of the law against such practice (Sec. 76-4-1, U.C.A.1953), and a remedy is available.” This gratuity is nothing more than apologetic dictum in Ritholz, not found even in any of the syllabi. It is purportedly supported by a footnote saying “Art 1, § 1 of the Utah Constitution guarantees freedom of expression, but holds individuals ‘responsible for the abuse of that right.’ ” The main opinion by saying this court "observed” such and such, recognizes the obi-ter’s lack of authority, but fails to add the rest of the paragraph, that seems to be so fitting in the instant case, to the effect that “It should be noted that the law cannot be made, nor could one be enforced, which would entirely protect the completely naive and gullible.” It is further significant to note that in Ritholz, no beneficial relief was given to anyone because of any violation of a statute. Contrariwise, relief actually was given the vendors of the spectacles (not transmissions) against the statute itself. It is no authority to support the main opinion, —but simply a bit of altruism, deifying what we appellate judges not too infrequently do: Contribute inoffensive but impotent and unnecessary literary gifts to equally unnecessary enlightenment. The only other authority cited in the main opinion, Ellis v. Hale, is one involving zoning ordinances. Although stating that in some instances negligence may be predicated upon the violation of an ordinance or statute, —another obvious dictum, —such statement immediately was followed by an enlightened “However,” followed by a conclusion that the ordinance was inapplicable in that case.
The trial court should be affirmed. (Emphasis added.)