Court Opinion

ID: 9883557
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-06 01:46:50.374468+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:48:18.868385
License: Public Domain

Lake, J.,
dissenting: I dissent on the ground that the defendant’s motion for judgment as of nonsuit should have been granted.
The alleged contract to “trade back with the plaintiff at any time within one (1) year” is so vague as to be meaningless and unenforceable. On what terms were the parties to “trade back”? Was it anticipated that the defendant, a dealer in automobiles, would retain the Ford for a year while waiting for the plaintiff to make up his mind whether he wanted to keep the Cadillac? Was it anticipated that the plaintiff might use the Cadillac for any time from a few minutes up to just short of twelve months and then return it to the defendant and get back the Ford plus the full amount paid by him to the defendant? If not, on what terms were the parties to “trade back”? The cause of action cannot be founded upon an alleged contract in which the defendant’s undertaking is so uncertain that the court cannot possibly determine what would constitute full performance of it.
Furthermore, if a contract be construed as an undertaking by the defendant to restore to the plaintiff everything the plaintiff Had turned over to the defendant upon the plaintiff’s returning to the defendant the Cadillac, the plaintiff’s evidence fails completely to show any damage sustained by the plaintiff as a result of the failure of the defendant to perform this undertaking. The record contains nothing whatever to show that the Cadillac was not worth more than the Ford plus all sums paid by the plaintiff to the defendant.
The plaintiff has not sued on the theory of breach of warranty or on the theory of fraud. His evidence does not establish a right of *228action against the defendant, assuming that one is alleged in the complaint, and the motion for nonsuit should have been allowed. Such judgment would not bar the plaintiff from instituting another suit for breach of warranty or for fraud and deceit, if he be so advised.
Higgins, J., joins in dissenting opinion.