Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Wright v. O'Neal Motors Inc.

Filed: May 4, 1982.

W. REID WRIGHT
v.
O'NEAL MOTORS, INC. AND CHRYSLER CORPORATION



Appeal by plaintiff from Barnett, Judge. Judgment entered 21 April 1981 in District Court, Wake County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 10 March 1982.

Wells, Judge. Judges Hill and Becton concur.

Wells

The question presented by this appeal is whether the trial court properly allowed defendants' motions for summary judgment.

I. Summary Judgment As To Defendant O'Neal Motors, Inc.

In plaintiff's verified complaint, he alleged that on 15 November 1980, he purchased, for cash, a new Plymouth "Reliant K" automobile from O'Neal Motors, and that:

II. Plaintiff accepted the automobile in the belief that the automobile conformed to the contract of sale. On November 16, 1980, plaintiff discovered that the automobile did not conform to the contract inasmuch as plaintiff experienced a roaring noise while driving as well as excessive vibration, fluid leaks, poor gas mileage, a dead battery, the car would pull to the right and other serious defects. Plaintiff could not have known of such defects before that time because of the difficulty of discovering such defects in a brand new automobile.

III. The defects in the automobile severely and substantially impaired its value to plaintiff inasmuch as plaintiff intended to use the "Reliant K" automobile as a means of reliable transportation and since the automobile has spent twelve days since the purchase date in defendant's garage, plaintiff can not use the automobile in its present condition.

IV. On December 19, 1980, plaintiff notified defendant that the automobile was not acceptable to him and that he was

revoking his said acceptance thereof. Plaintiff returned the automobile the [sic] defendant's lot on the same day and demanded that defendant return the purchase price of the "Reliant K" and pay plaintiff all incidental costs.

V. At the time plaintiff gave notice of revocation to defendant, the automobile was in substantially the same condition as when it was delivered to plaintiff, and it has not been harmed in any manner by plaintiff.

Plaintiff's right to revoke his purchase of the new Reliant K automobile must be determined according to the pertinent provisions of the Uniform Commercial Code contained in Chapter 25 of the General Statutes. G.S. 25-2-608 provides as follows:

ยง 25-2-608. Revocation of acceptance in whole or in part. -- (1) The buyer may revoke his acceptance of a lot or commercial unit whose nonconformity substantially ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.