COMM 393 Chapter Notes - Chapter Case: Paccar, Feucht, Fundamental Breach
COMM 393 Porelle v. Eddie’s Auto Sales Ltd. Case Briefs
[1996] P.E.I.J. No. 9, 138 Nfld & PERID 66
Prince Edward Island Supreme Court – Trial Division
January 12, 1996
Facts
• The plaintiff purchased a used automobile from the defendant company, a
business of used automobile sales.
o the 1988 Oldsmobile Delta 88 Royale automobile was advertised in an
issue of Auto Trader, with words like “just inspected”, “exe. cond.
throughout", “127,000 hwy kms”, for the price of $4,995.
• According to the plaintiff, the proprietor of the defendant company, Eddie Shea,
informed him that the Auto Trader had mistakenly listed the vehicle as a 1988
when in fact it was a 1987.
• According to the defendant, Shea, informed the plaintiff that the advertised
vehicle had been sold out, but there was a 1987 vehicle with same make and
model in stock for which the asking price was $1,000.
• On August 6, 1994, after a test drive, the plaintiff with his friend Marie Landry
purchased the 1987 Oldsmobile Delta 88 for $3,700. With warranty and tax, the
plaintiff paid $4,364.53
o During the test drive the plaintiff noticed the engine stalled a few times,
and Shea replied it may need a touch up.
o After the sale, the plaintiff began experiencing duties very soon after the
sale, and ended up replacing the engine for $2,141.42 on September 3
• The plaintiff is claiming for the cost of replacement of engine, as well as the cost
to replace radiator and the rack and pinion
Issues
• Was the Sale of Goods Act breached? Is the defendant liable?
Reasons
The plaintiff argues that there has been a breach of an implied warranty of fitness, and
that the defendant argued the defendant engaged in an unfair practice
Law: Sale of Goods Act R.S.P.E.I 1988 Section 16
• states that “an express warranty or condition does not negative a warranty or
condition implied by this Act unless inconsistent therewith”
There are express conditions in the sales contract signed by the plaintiff which are
inconsistent with the warranty or condition implied by the Act.
• the contract states (in highlighted) that “you have purchased a used vehicle. We
the dealer are not responsible for any repairs after date of purchase unless
stated on the contract in writing”
• the plaintiff testified that he had read and understood the exclusionary clause,
and signed below text that says “I accept delivery of this vehicle with full
knowledge of the terms and conditions of the sale”
find more resources at oneclass.com
find more resources at oneclass.com
