Wilcox v. Hillcrest Memorial Park of Dallas

Texas Supreme Court

Wilcox v. Hillcrest Memorial Park of Dallas

701 S.W.2d 842, 42 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. (West) 1303, 29 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 136, 1986 Tex. LEXIS 853

CourtTexas Supreme Court

DecidedJanuary 8, 1986

DocketC-4603

StatusPublished

Cited by12 cases

This text of 701 S.W.2d 842 (Wilcox v. Hillcrest Memorial Park of Dallas) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Texas Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Wilcox v. Hillcrest Memorial Park of Dallas, 701 S.W.2d 842, 42 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. (West) 1303, 29 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 136, 1986 Tex. LEXIS 853 (Tex. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

OPINION ON APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF ERROR

Jack Wilcox sued Batesville Casket Company, Service Corporation International, Inc., d/b/a/ Sparkman-Hillcrest Funeral Home, and Hillcrest Memorial Park of Dallas for alleged negligence and breach of warranty in connection with the sale, handling, and maintenance of a “sealer”-type casket purchased by Wilcox. The jury failed to find any liability on the part of Hillcrest or Sparkman; however, they found that the casket supplied by Bates-ville was unfit for ordinary purposes and that such condition was a proximate cause of the occurrence at issue. The jury further found that Wilcox did not inform Batesville of the warranty claims within a reasonable period of time.

The trial court disregarded the jury’s findings pertaining to the breach of warranty and rendered judgment that Wilcox take nothing. As an alternative ground for its judgment, the trial court held that Wilcox’s failure to notify Batesville barred his breach of warranty claim. The court of appeals affirmed the trial court judgment, and, in doing so, held that Tex.Bus. and Com.Code Ann. § 2.607(c)(1) requires that a buyer notify a remote seller-manufacturer, such as Batesville, of an alleged breach of warranty within a reasonable time or be barred from any remedy for breach of warranty. 696 S.W.2d 423.

We agree with the trial court's alternative holding that there was no evidence to support the jury’s findings concerning the breach of warranty. Because of such alternative grounds for the trial court’s judgment, the court of appeals need not have decided this case on the basis of Section 2.607(c)(1). Thus, while we acknowledge the conflict between the court of appeals’ decision in this case and the El Paso court of appeals decision in Vintage Homes, Inc. v. Coldiron, 585 S.W.2d 886 (Tex.Civ.App.—El Paso 1979, no writ) on the question of whether a buyer must notify a remote seller-manufacturer of an alleged breach of warranty within a reasonable time, we reserve judgment on this question. The application for writ of error filed by Wilcox is refused, no reversible error.

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

PER CURIAM

OPINION ON APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF ERROR

Jack Wilcox sued Batesville Casket Company, Service Corporation International, Inc., d/b/a/ Sparkman-Hillcrest Funeral Home, and Hillcrest Memorial Park of Dallas for alleged negligence and breach of warranty in connection with the sale, handling, and maintenance of a “sealer”-type casket purchased by Wilcox. The jury failed to find any liability on the part of Hillcrest or Sparkman; however, they found that the casket supplied by Bates-ville was unfit for ordinary purposes and that such condition was a proximate cause of the occurrence at issue. The jury further found that Wilcox did not inform Batesville of the warranty claims within a reasonable period of time.

The trial court disregarded the jury’s findings pertaining to the breach of warranty and rendered judgment that Wilcox take nothing. As an alternative ground for its judgment, the trial court held that Wilcox’s failure to notify Batesville barred his breach of warranty claim. The court of appeals affirmed the trial court judgment, and, in doing so, held that Tex.Bus. and Com.Code Ann. § 2.607(c)(1) requires that a buyer notify a remote seller-manufacturer, such as Batesville, of an alleged breach of warranty within a reasonable time or be barred from any remedy for breach of warranty. 696 S.W.2d 423.

We agree with the trial court's alternative holding that there was no evidence to support the jury’s findings concerning the breach of warranty. Because of such alternative grounds for the trial court’s judgment, the court of appeals need not have decided this case on the basis of Section 2.607(c)(1). Thus, while we acknowledge the conflict between the court of appeals’ decision in this case and the El Paso court of appeals decision in Vintage Homes, Inc. v. Coldiron, 585 S.W.2d 886 (Tex.Civ.App.—El Paso 1979, no writ) on the question of whether a buyer must notify a remote seller-manufacturer of an alleged breach of warranty within a reasonable time, we reserve judgment on this question. The application for writ of error filed by Wilcox is refused, no reversible error.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

701 S.W.2d 842, 42 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. (West) 1303, 29 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 136, 1986 Tex. LEXIS 853, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wilcox-v-hillcrest-memorial-park-of-dallas-tex-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack