Court Opinion

ID: 9635870
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 14:08:41.017926+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:09:38.249717
License: Public Domain

Hulburd, C. J.,
dissenting. The majority opinion, it seems to me, has enlarged on the scope of the warranty. It is basic law that the measure of the responsibility of the seller of a motor vehicle under an express warranty is fixed by the terms of the warranty. 77 C.J.S. Sales §330 at p. 1201. In making a warranty of a motor vehicle, the seller may put any limitation he chooses on the character of the warranty or the time during which it is to remain in effect. Ford Motor *416Co. v. Switzer, 140 Va. 383, 125 S.E. 209; Oldfield v. International Motor Co., 138 Md. 35, 113 Atl. 632; Scott v. Industrial Finance Corp., Tex. Civ. App., 265 S.W.181. The warranty sued on here was a “ninety day new car guarantee.” Obviously this is not the same as a “ninety day money back guarantee.” I agree that under a new car guarantee the seller warranted the motor vehicle to be free from defects in material and workmanship and was bound to make such repairs and furnish such parts, without cost to the buyer during the ninety-day period, as would permit the normal use and service of the vehicle purchased. This, in fact, is the construction put upon the warranty by the parties themselves in connection with earlier defects remedied by the seller. Indeed, the plaintiff did not testify that she understood otherwise. No reasonable person, it seems to me, has any right to expect that he can get a better deal — that is, a better warranty, on a used car than is to be had on a new one. The evidence is clear that there has been no refusal or failure of the defendant to repair the vehicle. The plaintiff, instead, has refused to allow the defendant to do this and wants her money back. With the evidence standing as it did, there was no issue to submit to the jury, and I am convinced that the defendant’s exception to the trial court’s action to the contrary should have been sustained. Compare Martin v. Norris, 188 Md. 330, 52 A.2d 470.