I have read the entire case - SO
Case Citation: Crandell v. Larkin and Jones Appliance Company, 334 N.W.2d 31
Facts: The prior judgement was for a motion to exclude any liability action from their product. Gloria and Crandell are the appellants and Larkin and Jones Appliance Company is the appellee. Crandell purchased a use Coronado dryer from Larkin and Jones an appliance company. It was described as a reconditioned unit with a “guarantee.” There was a 90-day guarantee for “workmanship, parts and labor. Crandel purchased the dry because of the guarantee and for the price of $100. 14 days after purchasing the dryer Crandell was having issues with it and starting fires. Fire department found that the cause of the fire was the ignition of the dryer. Court did not find Larkin and Jones Appliance Company to be completely liable and did not breach the contract (express and implied warranties).
Issue: Is Larkin and Jones Appliance Company liable for damages due to the expressed warranty?
Holding: Yes, they were found for the consequential damages caused by the dryer due to the express warranty.
Majority Opinion Reasoning: DUNN, Justice
A. Rule:
I. Strict liability theory, which does not …show more content…
Grady purchased a vehicle from Thompson which created a purchase order. There was a down payment for the car with the remaining balance to be financed by Grady. The car broke down and was taken back to Grady for repairs. When she got it back it was still having issues multiple times. She had not luck working with Thompson and decided to revoke the sale by letter. GMAC filed to recover the car because they were no longer receiving payments. GMAC sold the car in auction and filed to reclaim remaining amount owed from the agreement. Grady counterclaimed a third-party complaint against Thompson. GMAC won favor over Grady for the remaining balance of the car, but ruled in favor of Grady over Thompson for the balance plus
Case Citation: Crandell v. Larkin and Jones Appliance Company, 334 N.W.2d 31
Facts: The prior judgement was for a motion to exclude any liability action from their product. Gloria and Crandell are the appellants and Larkin and Jones Appliance Company is the appellee. Crandell purchased a use Coronado dryer from Larkin and Jones an appliance company. It was described as a reconditioned unit with a “guarantee.” There was a 90-day guarantee for “workmanship, parts and labor. Crandel purchased the dry because of the guarantee and for the price of $100. 14 days after purchasing the dryer Crandell was having issues with it and starting fires. Fire department found that the cause of the fire was the ignition of the dryer. Court did not find Larkin and Jones Appliance Company to be completely liable and did not breach the contract (express and implied warranties).
Issue: Is Larkin and Jones Appliance Company liable for damages due to the expressed warranty?
Holding: Yes, they were found for the consequential damages caused by the dryer due to the express warranty.
Majority Opinion Reasoning: DUNN, Justice
A. Rule:
I. Strict liability theory, which does not …show more content…
Grady purchased a vehicle from Thompson which created a purchase order. There was a down payment for the car with the remaining balance to be financed by Grady. The car broke down and was taken back to Grady for repairs. When she got it back it was still having issues multiple times. She had not luck working with Thompson and decided to revoke the sale by letter. GMAC filed to recover the car because they were no longer receiving payments. GMAC sold the car in auction and filed to reclaim remaining amount owed from the agreement. Grady counterclaimed a third-party complaint against Thompson. GMAC won favor over Grady for the remaining balance of the car, but ruled in favor of Grady over Thompson for the balance plus