Legal Opinion

Roupp v. Acor

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided April 13, 1978No. 1766PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

CERCONE, Judge:

This appeal challenges the lower court’s finding that appellant breached the implied warranties of merchantability (U.C.C. § 2-314, 12A P.S. § 2-314) and fitness for a particular purpose (U.C.C. § 2-315,12A P.S. § 2-315) relative to the sale of a used truck. Finding no error we affirm.

On August 15, 1974, plaintiff-appellee purchased a 1967 Diamond Reo truck from appellant for the sum of $8,699.42. Prior to purchase appellee informed appellant he was seek ing a truck that had enough power to use in his timber hauling business. Appellee further advised appellant that he wanted a…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Francioni v. Gibsonia Truck Corp.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1977
  2. Overland Bond & Investment Corp. v. HowardAppellate Court of Illinois · 1972
  3. Rose v. Epley Motor SalesSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1975
  4. Chamberlain v. Bob Matick Chevrolet, Inc.Connecticut Appellate Court · 1967
  5. Brown v. HallDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1969

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Worthey v. Specialty Foam Products, Inc.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1979
  2. Dormont Manufacturing Co. v. ITT Grinnell Corp.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1983

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API