Ekizian v. Capurro

Ossining Justice Court

Ekizian v. Capurro

111 Misc. 2d 372, 444 N.Y.S.2d 361, 1981 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3279

CourtJustice Court of Town of Ossining

DecidedOctober 26, 1981

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 111 Misc. 2d 372 (Ekizian v. Capurro) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Justice Court of Town of Ossining primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Ekizian v. Capurro, 111 Misc. 2d 372, 444 N.Y.S.2d 361, 1981 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3279 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1981).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Edwin S. Shapiro, J.

Plaintiff purchased a used 1976 Chevrolet van from defendant for the sum of $1,700 and sues for $1,450 in alleged damages arising out of a defective engine.

With the consent of defendant’s counsel, a small claims trial was held on the adjourned date without the presence of defendant. The evidence established that at the time of the sale the vehicle’s cylinder head was cracked in five places. The vehicle was unregistered and could not be lawfully road tested by a competent mechanic. Plaintiff’s friend, a “backyard mechanic” checked out the engine by starting it up on defendant’s premises on two or three occasions. Plaintiff did not fully rely upon his friend’s examination of the engine, for on at least two occasions plaintiff sought defendant’s assurance as to the condition of the engine, and both times defendant assured plaintiff that “the engine runs good.”

Because defendant was not a dealer, or shown to be a mechanic, the court cannot construe either an implied warranty of merchantability under section 2-314 of the Uniform Commercial Code or an implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose under section 2-315 of the Uniform Commercial Code. However, the court construes seller’s assurances that “the engine runs good” as a repre[373]*373sentation that the engine was “not cracked”. The court further concludes that: (1) plaintiff reasonably relied upon this representation as “part of the basis of the bargain”; (2) there was no applicable written disclaimer which was necessarily inconsistent therewith; and (3) consequently, seller’s oral representation was also an express warranty under section 2-313 of the Uniform Commercial Code, at least to the extent that the engine was “not cracked”.

Under the circumstances and on the basis of the law and the facts, plaintiff is entitled to judgment in the sum of $540.70.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

OPINION OF THE COURT

Edwin S. Shapiro, J.

Plaintiff purchased a used 1976 Chevrolet van from defendant for the sum of $1,700 and sues for $1,450 in alleged damages arising out of a defective engine.

With the consent of defendant’s counsel, a small claims trial was held on the adjourned date without the presence of defendant. The evidence established that at the time of the sale the vehicle’s cylinder head was cracked in five places. The vehicle was unregistered and could not be lawfully road tested by a competent mechanic. Plaintiff’s friend, a “backyard mechanic” checked out the engine by starting it up on defendant’s premises on two or three occasions. Plaintiff did not fully rely upon his friend’s examination of the engine, for on at least two occasions plaintiff sought defendant’s assurance as to the condition of the engine, and both times defendant assured plaintiff that “the engine runs good.”

Because defendant was not a dealer, or shown to be a mechanic, the court cannot construe either an implied warranty of merchantability under section 2-314 of the Uniform Commercial Code or an implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose under section 2-315 of the Uniform Commercial Code. However, the court construes seller’s assurances that “the engine runs good” as a repre[373]*373sentation that the engine was “not cracked”. The court further concludes that: (1) plaintiff reasonably relied upon this representation as “part of the basis of the bargain”; (2) there was no applicable written disclaimer which was necessarily inconsistent therewith; and (3) consequently, seller’s oral representation was also an express warranty under section 2-313 of the Uniform Commercial Code, at least to the extent that the engine was “not cracked”.

Under the circumstances and on the basis of the law and the facts, plaintiff is entitled to judgment in the sum of $540.70.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

111 Misc. 2d 372, 444 N.Y.S.2d 361, 1981 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3279, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ekizian-v-capurro-nyjustctossinin-1981.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack