Court Opinion

ID: 9574205
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 21:03:19.148515+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:44:13.289779
License: Public Domain

Chief Justice Sharp
dissenting.
I am in accord with the majority’s decision (1) that on 21 July 1972 defendant had a mechanics’ lien upon plaintiff’s automobile for work done prior to 4 May 1972, and therefore the right to retain possession of it, until plaintiff paid the dishonored check of 4 May 1972 in the amount of $1,530.03; and *494(2) that defendant did not obtain by duress of goods the contract and note which plaintiff executed on 21 July 1972 (introduced in evidence as Exhibits A and B respectively). I am also in accord with the statement in the majority opinion that when plaintiff signed the note and contract “ [t] his was a voluntary adjudgment of a dispute.” This dispute was whether .the automobile’s mechanical failure, which plaintiff alleges developed in the car on a test run, was caused by defendant’s negligent work in reconstructing the vehicle or by plaintiff’s over-revving the engine thereafter.
My dissent is to the majority’s holding that Exhibit A is not a release. Although the contract bears no label, plaintiff himself testified that it was a release and that defendant’s representative told him before he signed it on July 21st that “the only way [he] could get the car that day was to sign a release that [he] wouldn’t hold them responsible for anything. . . .” I can perceive no ambiguity in Exhibit A but, were it possible to construe one into it, the interpretation which the parties put on their contract would eliminate the ambiguity. Plaintiff says it was a release and his testimony establishes that defendant certainly regarded it as a release, given in consideration of its waiver of a valid lien on the automobile.
The record discloses no compelling reason why plaintiff had to have the automobile on July 21st. It had been sitting on defendant’s lot “for a good while.” Apparently on that day plaintiff just decided he wanted the car and defendant had had it long enough. He also seems to have been under the impression that defendant’s lawyer had agreed with his lawyer that defendant would surrender possession of the car if plaintiff paid the bank note in the amount of $2,500.00, which defendant had endorsed for plaintiff and the proceeds of which paid a part of the bill plaintiff owed defendant. However, as plaintiff testified, when he tendered the certified check for $2,500.00 and demanded the car, defendant’s representatives told him there was no way he could get the car that day without also paying the dishonored check in the amount of $1,530.03 unless he “went to the sheriff and got a court order making them release the automobile without payment of the money.” However, after “they had called their lawyer,” defendant’s representatives agreed that he could get the car that day if he signed “a release that he wouldn’t hold them responsible for anything” and executed a note for the $1,530.03.
*495On cross-examination plaintiff said, “It was my idea to sign the note for the money; the note for $1,500.00 I signed when I signed the release.” Thereafter, on redirect examination, he said, “I did not suggest that I sign the note for $1,500.00.” However, he never retracted his statement that he “read the release” and knew what he was signing. He also said he knew that his lawyer was not available to him on that day and he made no effort to contact him. In other words he deliberately went ahead on his own without the advice of his counsel, and made his own arrangements. In consideration of defendant’s waiver of its lien, a twenty-day extension of time to pay the dishonored cheek in the amount of $1,530.03 (which he did not have on July 21st), and the waiver of all interest if the indebtedness was paid before August 10th, plaintiff acknowledged that he had “no defense or set-off against such indebtedness grounded upon poor workmanship or other objections.” (Emphasis added.) Other objections could only have referred to the manner in which the car was rebuilt.
If defendant had first filed an action seeking to recover on its note plaintiff could have preserved his warranty claim only by pleading them in his answer. They would have been compulsory set-offs and counterclaims under G.S. 1A-1, Rule 13(a), since they arise out of the same transaction. However, as the majority correctly holds, by the execution of Exhibit A, plaintiff precluded himself from making any defense to the note grounded upon poor workmanship. As I see it he did that and more. He also renounced his claims against negligence and breach of warranty when he said in Exhibit A: “This will acknowledge by indebtedness of $1,530.03 representing the balance due for labor and parts to finish any drag race car and that I have no defenses or set-offs against such indebtedness grounded upon poor workmanship or other objections.”
In the face of the foregoing acknowledgment — which we hold to be valid — and in the. face of plaintiff’s testimony that defendant’s representative told him he couldn’t get the car unless he signed “a release that [he7] wouldn’t hold them responsible for anything,” (emphasis added) how can we now hold that plaintiff has released his claims- against defendant as a defense to its note but retained them to be used offensively as the basis for a separate cause of action against defendant? Such a holding, in my view, is impermissible and totally illogical.
*496My vote is to reverse the Court of Appeals and affirm the judgment of the Superior Court.
Justice Copeland joins in this dissent.