Court Opinion

ID: 9834374
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 23:32:05.683321+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:44:14.342402
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
Appellee in its motion for rehearing very earnestly insists that the appellant did not plead that the machine in question was unfit for and not adapted to the purposes for which it was manufactured and sold to the appellant; but that he only pleaded that it did not perform the service for which it was recommended and sold. We do not sustain this contention. We quote excerpts from the appellant’s answer pertinent to this issue:
After alleging at some length the purposes for which appellant desired to purchase and use said instrument, appellant alleged that appellee’s agent represented “that it would operate by electricity automatically in placing said records and in removing one record when completed and playing another; and that said machine was reasonably adapted for said purpose” ; again, in another portion of the pleading, after setting out in detail the purposes for which said machine was recommended, that appellee’s agents “represented that said machine was adapted, well fitted for and would perform all said purposes and uses ⅜ * * and that it was well adapted for all of said purposes”; again, “that said machine has wholly failed to do or perform any of the functions for which it was manufactured, designed, and sold and delivered to this defendant, and proved to be wholly worthless for any purpose whatever” ; further, “that defendant on various occasions after said machine was so placed in his place of business, called attention of plaintiff to said defects and failure of said machine so to operate”; that, in reliance upon such recommendations, the appellant purchased the machine “believing the same would operate and perform the functions and purposes for which same was. manufactured and for which it was recommended and sold' by the plaintiff to the said defendant” ; and again, after repairs had been attempted on said machine by the appellee, that said machine “wholly ceased to function and operate in any manner, and proved to be, as it had theretofore proved to be, wholly worthless and incapable of performing any of the functions for which same was manufactured, sold and recommended to the defendant”; and, further, that because of numerous facts alleged, “said property was wholly unfit and was useless for the purposes for which the same was sold and delivered to defendant.”
From the foregoing excerpts quoted in part from the pleadings, we think the conclusion is inescapable that the appellant pleaded the unfitness of the machine and its lack of adaptability to the purposes and uses, not only for which it was recommended and sold, but for which it was manufactured.
Appellee’s motion is therefore overruled.
Motion overruled.