Young v. B. F. Goodrich Tire Co.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Young v. B. F. Goodrich Tire Co.

205 S.E.2d 185, 262 S.C. 445, 1974 S.C. LEXIS 334

CourtSupreme Court of South Carolina

DecidedMay 23, 1974

Docket19831

StatusPublished

This text of 205 S.E.2d 185 (Young v. B. F. Goodrich Tire Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of South Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Young v. B. F. Goodrich Tire Co., 205 S.E.2d 185, 262 S.C. 445, 1974 S.C. LEXIS 334 (S.C. 1974).

Pincite

Opinion

Brailsford, Justice:

Plaintiff appeals from summary judgment for defendant in an action for fraud and deceit in the sale of automobile tires. Judgment was awarded on theory that deposition of plaintiff and of one of defendant’s employees showed that there was no fraud and that plaintiff had not suffered any damage. We disagree. Plaintiff deposed that the tires were advertised by defendant’s local store as guaranteed for 40,000' mile radials, and that they were so represented to him by the salesman with whom he dealt. This, they were not. In fact, the defendant did not begin to market guaranteed 40,000 mile radials until some eight months later. These tires carried only a warranty against defects and road hazards which at the time of sale was applicable to all grades of Goodrich tires. Whether the misrepresentation was fraudulently made is for determination by a trial jury.

Obviously the tires were of less value than they would have been if guaranteed by defendant for 40,-000 miles, and, under the applicable benefit of the bargain rule, the difference in value is the measure of plaintiff’s damages. Aaron v. Hampton Motors, Inc., 240 S. C. 26, 124 S. E. (2d) 585 (1962).

Reversed.

Moss, C. J., and Lewis, Bussey and Littlejohn, JJ., concur.

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

Brailsford, Justice:

Plaintiff appeals from summary judgment for defendant in an action for fraud and deceit in the sale of automobile tires. Judgment was awarded on theory that deposition of plaintiff and of one of defendant’s employees showed that there was no fraud and that plaintiff had not suffered any damage. We disagree. Plaintiff deposed that the tires were advertised by defendant’s local store as guaranteed for 40,000' mile radials, and that they were so represented to him by the salesman with whom he dealt. This, they were not. In fact, the defendant did not begin to market guaranteed 40,000 mile radials until some eight months later. These tires carried only a warranty against defects and road hazards which at the time of sale was applicable to all grades of Goodrich tires. Whether the misrepresentation was fraudulently made is for determination by a trial jury.

Obviously the tires were of less value than they would have been if guaranteed by defendant for 40,-000 miles, and, under the applicable benefit of the bargain rule, the difference in value is the measure of plaintiff’s damages. Aaron v. Hampton Motors, Inc., 240 S. C. 26, 124 S. E. (2d) 585 (1962).

Reversed.

Moss, C. J., and Lewis, Bussey and Littlejohn, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

205 S.E.2d 185, 262 S.C. 445, 1974 S.C. LEXIS 334, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/young-v-b-f-goodrich-tire-co-sc-1974.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack