Jones v. Renault Selling Branch

Appellate Court of Illinois

Jones v. Renault Selling Branch

204 Ill. App. 422

CourtAppellate Court of Illinois

DecidedMarch 26, 1917

DocketGen. No. 22,732

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 204 Ill. App. 422 (Jones v. Renault Selling Branch) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Court of Illinois primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Jones v. Renault Selling Branch, 204 Ill. App. 422 (Ill. Ct. App. 1917).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Presiding Justice McSurely

delivered the opinion of the court.

2. Sales, § 114*—what does not constitute performance of contract for sate of a new automobile. Where defendant agreed to sell plaintiff a new automobile, held that he could not avoid his obligation by furnishing a car worn by showing it to prospective purchasers or moving it from place to place for providing equipment “and similar purposes,” as such use alone might so wear a car as to materially impair its operation. 3. Sales, § 357*—when instruction on right of recovery in action to recover money paid on purchase of new automobilé is erroneous. In an action to recover money paid on the purchase of a new automobile based upon a claim that the car furnished was, from age and wear, from whatever cause, not new, held that an instruction that even if the uses wore the automobile to the breaking point the plaintiff could not recover was erroneous, as if the jury should believe that the use and wear had been shown to be more than reasonably should be in a new car of the kind and price, plaintiff would be entitled to recover. 4. Pleading, § 1*—what time governs as to determination of rights of parties. Where no supplemental pleadings are filed, the rights of the parties must be determined according to the facts existing at the time the action was commenced.

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

Mr. Presiding Justice McSurely

delivered the opinion of the court.

2. Sales, § 114*—what does not constitute performance of contract for sate of a new automobile. Where defendant agreed to sell plaintiff a new automobile, held that he could not avoid his obligation by furnishing a car worn by showing it to prospective purchasers or moving it from place to place for providing equipment “and similar purposes,” as such use alone might so wear a car as to materially impair its operation. 3. Sales, § 357*—when instruction on right of recovery in action to recover money paid on purchase of new automobilé is erroneous. In an action to recover money paid on the purchase of a new automobile based upon a claim that the car furnished was, from age and wear, from whatever cause, not new, held that an instruction that even if the uses wore the automobile to the breaking point the plaintiff could not recover was erroneous, as if the jury should believe that the use and wear had been shown to be more than reasonably should be in a new car of the kind and price, plaintiff would be entitled to recover. 4. Pleading, § 1*—what time governs as to determination of rights of parties. Where no supplemental pleadings are filed, the rights of the parties must be determined according to the facts existing at the time the action was commenced.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

204 Ill. App. 422, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jones-v-renault-selling-branch-illappct-1917.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack