Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Stephens-Franklin Motors, Inc. v. Lambros

Arizona Supreme Court

Decided March 5, 1951No. 5007Published

1ConcurrenceLa Prade, Justice

(specially concurring).

I concur in the result reached in the majority opinion but desire to state my reasons therefor. I cannot agree with the statements made that it is only when a car is in good operating condition that the dealer “has the right to warrant it”. The appellant-dealer in this case undoubtedly believed that the car was in good operating, condition and did, in. fact, warrant it, and became liable in damages for a breach of the conditions of the warranty.

One of the purposes of the Act in question was to place price limitations upon used cars. The Act provides for an “as is” price…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Porter v. NowakCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1946
  2. Monahan v. Jacobs & PolitiCity of New York Municipal Court · 1946
  3. Savoie v. SnellLouisiana Court of Appeal · 1947
  4. Tyson v. RossCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1947

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

Powered by the Exa API