Roupp v. Acor
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
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
- Francioni v. Gibsonia Truck Corp.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1977
- Overland Bond & Investment Corp. v. HowardAppellate Court of Illinois · 1972
- Rose v. Epley Motor SalesSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1975
- Chamberlain v. Bob Matick Chevrolet, Inc.Connecticut Appellate Court · 1967
- Brown v. HallDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1969
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Worthey v. Specialty Foam Products, Inc.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1979
- Dormont Manufacturing Co. v. ITT Grinnell Corp.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1983