Court Opinion

ID: 9583568
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 22:39:54.27005+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:38:57.163452
License: Public Domain

*353Judge Phillips
dissenting.
In my opinion, error prejudicial to the defendants has neither been shown nor is manifest from the record and the judgment appealed from should not be disturbed. In their brief defendants make but four contentions, one of which is repetitious — that the evidence does not show that defendant Pioneer Coach made any warranty whatever to Bailey; that the evidence does not show that either defendant committed an unfair or deceptive trade practice; that the evidence does not support a breach of warranty claim; and that the trial judge abused his discretion in permitting leading questions to be asked the plaintiff — and none of which have merit. And the reasons given by the majority for depriving plaintiff of his verdict and requiring that the case be retried is supported neither by evidence nor any principle of justice that I am aware of. Their impression that no evidence was introduced to show that the breakdown of the car was caused by any defect that existed at the time of sale —the apparent basis for eliminating the implied warranty claim and ordering a new trial on the express warranty claim — and that the evidence does not support the damages awarded and, indeed, does not show that plaintiff even suffered an injury at all as a consequence of the defendants’ deceitful trade practice is, to say the least, mistaken.
The record contains evidence tending to show that: Defendants were told, in effect, that the car purchased had to be suitable for effective and economical long distance driving and they impliedly represented that the car sold to plaintiff was suitable for that purpose. Defendant LeBeau told plaintiff he knew it was a good car and would give him good service and explicitly represented that the rings, the valves, the pistons, and the engine block of the car had been completely overhauled within the previous six months and that the front brakes had just been redone and the rear brakes checked and found to be in good condition. These representations reasonably implied, it seems to me, that the overhaul job was properly done, that the engine still functioned accordingly, and it was capable of continuing to function as a recently overhauled engine; which was not the case, as the use of the car soon revealed. Almost immediately the brakes failed to function properly and it was found that the transmission had no fluid and for that matter would not hold fluid, as much of the two quarts put in it leaked out on the ground, a clear indication that *354the transmission was both defective and expensive to operate. When told of these problems LeBeau said that they should not exist and tried to explain them away, maintaining that the car was in good shape. But just two or three weeks after the sale, on the way back to Greensboro from Danville, the car completely ceased to function; though the motor would run it had no compression and would not pull, so plaintiff had to leave the car in Reidsville and catch a ride back home to Greensboro. A few days later, as soon as he could arrange to do so, plaintiff rented a towing cradle at a cost of $25.50, got a friend with a car to accompany and help him, went to Reidsville and towed the car to defendants’ garage in Lexington. When defendants were told about the car’s failings LeBeau said defendants would correct them “in a couple of days” and plaintiff left the car there. After two weeks went by without hearing from the defendants plaintiff called defendants’ garage and Tom LeBeau told him their mechanic was still checking the car and they didn’t know whether it was a blown motor, or what. A week or so later, plaintiff telephoned defendants again and LeBeau told him that the main bearing and the block would have to be replaced and that they would put a rebuilt engine block in the car as soon as they could find one at a reasonable price. After several more weeks went by without hearing from defendants plaintiff had the finance company contact them, but to no avail. Plaintiff then called defendants still again and was told that the motor had been taken out of the car and they were waiting for a rebuilt block. Two weeks after that, still having received no information from defendants, plaintiff telephoned again and was told that their mechanic had quit and nothing could be done until they found and hired another one. Plaintiff then employed a lawyer, who demanded that defendants either fix the car at once or return plaintiff’s money and when they failed to do either suit was filed. At trial, nearly a year after the car was drug into defendants’ garage, it was still there incapable of running; and according to defendant’s mechanic — (who allegedly quit earlier and thereby prevented the car’s repair, but was then working for them part time, as he had done at all times involved) — the motor had not been torn “apart yet,” and thus he did not know what is wrong with it, since you cannot tell what is wrong with a car motor that will not function without tearing it apart.
This and the other evidence, in my opinion, not only indicates that the engine was defective when defendants sold the car to *355plaintiff, but that they knew it was defective and that their promise to repair it was not made in good faith, but for the purpose of delaying plaintiff in the use of his car and the recovery of his money. As is commonly known, automobile engines that have been completely overhauled in a proper manner do not usually lose all power and have to be replaced within six months. Knowing the car, its history and their misrepresentations about it, as they certainly did, the defendants’ acceptance of the broken down car with a promise to promptly make it whole, without demanding as the majority now does that plaintiff show just what caused the motor to fail, and their retention of the car for a year without bothering to tear the motor apart and verify what its trouble was, was an implied admission that they knew that the engine was defective when they sold the car to plaintiff, that the car failed because of these defects, and they were obligated to correct them. 2 Brandis N.C. Evidence Sec. 178 (1982). A party to a lawsuit does not have to prove what his adversary admits. Certainly, nothing in the evidence suggests that defendants’ recognition of their liability to repair or replace the defective motor was an act of philanthropy. And as to the damages, in addition to showing that plaintiff paid defendants $1,400 for a car that will not run and does not even have junk value to him, since defendants still have both the car and the title, the evidence shows that he suffered some out-of-pocket expenses, and much inconvenience and lost time. Among other things, he had to leave his stranded car in Reidsville and get back to Greensboro the best way he could; he had to get someone to take him back to Reidsville and help tow the car to Lexington and go back to Greensboro, a trip of some 120 miles that was not accomplished without cost; he had to telephone defendants many times because they never cálled him and continuously delayed the day of reckoning by one evasion or pretense or another for upwards of a year; he was deprived of the use of his car and left up in the air about getting it back for the same period.
If justice requires that any legal requirements, appellate or otherwise, be waived in this case, it plainly requires that they be waived in favor of the one who has been deceived and victimized; it certainly does not require that they be waived in favor of those who did the deceiving and have enjoyed the fruits of their deception ever since as the majority would do. But there is no reason *356to waive anything; it is only necessary to follow the law, which requires that the judgment appealed from be upheld in all respects.