Court Opinion

ID: 9649000
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 14:40:27.803428+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:12:07.029872
License: Public Domain

SHARPE, Justice
(concurring).
I concur in the judgment of this Court affirming that of the trial court. In this case the plaintiffs-appellants sued for rescission of their contract for the purchase of an automobile — not for damages. The trial court acted properly in granting defendant’s motions for judgment non ob-stante veredicto and to disregard jury findings and in rendering judgment that plaintiffs take nothing by their suit.
Appellee’s primary contention that there was no basis established here for rescission of the contract in question is supported by a number of cases set out in its brief, including two decisions of this Court. See Reynolds Brothers, Inc. v. Dodson, 380 S.W.2d 678 (Tex.Civ.App., Corpus Christi, 1964, n. w. h.) and Mathis Equipment Company v. Rosson, 386 S.W.2d 854 (Tex.Civ.App., Corpus Christi, 1965, wr. ref. n. r. e.). In Reynolds and Mathis we cited and relied upon the cases of Wright & Clark v. Davenport, 44 Tex. 164 (1875) ; Bedner v. Dunigan Tool & Supply Company, 142 Tex. 663, 180 S.W.2d 919 (1944); and Dillard v. Clutter, 145 S.W.2d 632 (Tex.Civ.App., Amarillo, 1940, wr. ref.) which aptly state the general rules concerning rescission of the sale of personal property prior to adoption of the Uniform Commercial Code. The rules reiterated in Reynolds and Mathis are applicable to the instant case.
The opinion in Reynolds points out the remedies available to a buyer in a case such as this. Since plaintiffs’ cause of action for rescission here was not established and there was no alternative plea for recovery of damages, the trial court correctly rendered a take-nothing judgment.