Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

119 Misc. 724

Hunter v. Finnerty

New York Supreme Court

Decided December 15, 1922

New York Supreme Court · decided 1922-12-15

Decided 1922-12-15

Per Curiam.

¶1Action on a promissory note for $350. Answer that plaintiff sold defendants an automobile for $350 with a warranty that it was good and usable, for which they executed the note in suit, and that the automobile was worthless. Defendants counterclaimed for $219 expended in repairs to the automobile to make it usable. Plaintiff contradicted defendants’ story.

¶2The evidence shows that defendants did not reject the car and never actually rescinded the contract to purchase the same. This being so they had the remedies provided for a breach of the warranty, viz., to recoup in diminution or extinction of the purchase price, or to maintain an action against the plaintiff for their damages.

¶3The remedy here was under section 150, subdivision a, of the Personal Property Law, and involves an abatement of the purchase price which can amount to the whole purchase price only where the goods are worthless. Gerli & Co. v. Mistletoe Silk Mills, 80 N. J. Law, 128, 130.

¶4There is not sufficient proof to show that the car and its parts have no value, nor is there sufficient proof to establish that the parts supplied and the repairs which defendants made, under the plaintiff’s instructions to have the car fixed up, were proper and necessary and that a fair and reasonable price was paid for the same.

¶5Judgment reversed and new trial ordered, with thirty dollars costs to appellant to abide the event.

¶6All concur; present, Guy, Bijur and Delehanty, JJ.

¶7Judgment reversed.

/119/misc/724 · .json · Public domain