Court Opinion

ID: 9766026
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 04:29:07.923877+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:30:18.530921
License: Public Domain

On Motions for Rehearing
In our original opinion we upheld judgment against Roach because of negligent refusal to repair. We rejected liability on the part of Roach based on its dealer’s warranty that the automobile was warranted as being free from defects in workmanship and materials. The basis of our decision in this respect was that this warranty relied on by appellee expressly limited Roach’s liability to replacement, without charge, of the defective parts or material. There was no pleading by which this limiting provision was attacked as being illegal because contrary to public policy. Appellee merely sued on the express warranty and he, therefore, in the absence of attack by pleading, took the warranty as it was written. On appeal, for the first time, so far as the record shows, he asserts the limiting language is contrary to public policy and therefore ineffective. We stated we knew of no such public policy in Texas. We feel such statement was really unnecessary to our decision because no issue of public policy was made in the trial court. We, therefore express no view as to this should it be properly raised in the trial court and on appeal.
The motions for rehearing filed by appellant Roach and appellee Puskar are overruled.