Court Opinion

ID: 9658815
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 21:15:35.602771+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:13:59.916700
License: Public Domain

Frank T. Gallagher, Judge
(dissenting).
It is my opinion that under all the facts and circumstances here we can hardly say that a sale was consummated to the extent that the defendant is guilty of a violation of the ordinance.
Here we have a situation where there seems to be considerable disagreement between the parties as to just what the deal was. Defendant claims that it was the intention of the parties that the title to the 1955 Ford should not pass to the purported purchasers until they completed the downpayment and that, in view of the fact that payment was stopped on the check which constituted part of the downpayment, there never was a sale. The purported purchasers on the other hand contend that when they discovered that there was to be a final “balloon” payment of $895, that provision was not in accordance with the agreement they had made with the defendant. In any event, it is undisputed that $315.73 of the downpayment made on November 8, 1955, was never actually received by the defendant inasmuch as payment was stopped on the check for that amount.
*123Considering the record in its entirety and the apparent conflicts between the parties as to their respective understandings in connection with the entire transaction, I cannot agree with the majority that the so-called sale was completed so as to justify a conviction for the violation of the ordinance involved.