Court Opinion

ID: 9659712
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 21:53:10.407302+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:14:10.974552
License: Public Domain

T. G. Kavanagh, J.
(dissenting). This case presents two issues for review. 1) Whether Michigan law governing breach of implied warranty should be extended to cover rental property? 2) Whether plaintiffs’ appeal was timely made? Since each issue was vigorously contested, leave to appeal was granted. This opinion addresses itself to both issues.
I agree with Justice Black that Michigan law regarding breach of implied warranty should be extended to include rental property. His opinion is well reasoned and articulate, and provides substantial and welcome addition to our jurispru*181dence. I can add nothing to it except my endorsement.
I agree with defendant, however, that plaintiffs’ appeal is not timely brought. GCR 1963, 853.2(3) requires that an appeal to this Court must be brought within six months from the decision of the Court of Appeals. Plaintiffs did not do so. Therefore the Court of Appeals decision affirming the trial court’s direction of a verdict on the breach of implied warranty count operates as the law of the case. I would dismiss the appeal.