Court Opinion

ID: 9694069
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 17:20:07.120191+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:19:55.077479
License: Public Domain

HAMITER, Justice
(concurring in part and dissenting in part).
With the majority I agree that plaintiff is not entitled to recover under her main demand which is for. a recission of, the sale and for the payment to her of the purchase price and other sums allegedly expended, all aggregating $28,006.99.
- Further, I agree that under the alternative demand for a reduction of the purchase price plaintiff should be awarded whatever amount is necessary to place the “Windjammer” in a seaworthy condition as a 25-year-old sailing yacht (which she was when sold), not as a new one.
But I am not sure that the sum of $5,000, for which the majority ordered judgment in plaintiff’s favor, is the proper amount to be awarded.. The evidence before us, as I appreciate it, does not disclose with any degree of certainty the cost of rendering seaworthy, as such, the 25-year-old vessel. The required cost, for all the present record discloses, could be much more or much less than the $5,000 awarded.
I am of the opinion, therefore, that the case should be remanded to the district court for the'purpose of receiving eviden.ee appropriate and sufficient for definitely determining this question of -quantum.