In the case of James Moore v. Mack Trucks, Inc. and Worldwide Equipment Inc. , the facts are that the Appellant appeals against the truck manufacturer and the distributor for recovery of business losses and losses associated with the truck’s eventual repossession. The Circuit Court, Floyd County had summarily dismissed the contention made by the Appellant. After ruling that the appeal has been preferred in a timely and proper manner, the court goes into the merits of the contentions of the Appellant.
The Appellant alleges that when he expressed concerns about the eighteen speed transmission of the vehicle, he was informed him the transmission had been completely redone by Mack. Appellant claims that he was informed him that the truck would suit appellant’s needs because the truck had a large rear differential and a larger motor, allowing it to get up and down hills.
This, the Appellant contends created an express warranty. However, the court dismissed the contention as the warranty and sales agreement of the defendant disclaimed all implied warranties. In my opinion, the ruling is incorrect as even though the warranty agreements signed clearly disclaim any other implied warranties, a customer can ordinarily rely on statements made by the representatives of the defendants.
While the second statement made by the representative is merely an opinion, as rightly pointed by the court, the appellant should not have to suffer as a result of relying on the first statement. It is conceded that the appellant should have perused the documents diligently, yet to state that a vendor is exempted from liabilities arising out of a default of his promises so long as there is an exemption clause protecting him, would put the buyer in a very precarious position.
The ruling is somewhat contrary to Christian principles in that it legitimizes a certain amount of deception by the seller, allowing him to dupe and take pecuniary advantage. Ordinarily, the tenet of caveat venditor should be followed rather than caveat emptor. As per the Christian idea, we trust our fellow beings, and it would be of benefit and advantage to all. In the given case, the respondents are allowed to be exempt from their promises solely on the basis of a technicality in the contract.