ALFRED MANHEIM, APPELLANT,
v.
FORD MOTOR COMPANY, A CORPORATION, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Implied Warranty Of Fitness cases and more on FLexlaw
Affirmed upon authority of Rozen v. Chrysler Corp., Fla.App.1962, 142 So.2d 735 and Friedman v. Ford Motor Co., Fla.App.1965, 179 So.2d 371.
(concurring specially).
I concur because of the holding of this court in the Rozen case, followed in the Friedman case, in neither of which decisions did I participate.
By affirming the summary judgment in this case in favor of the defendant Ford Motor Company on the authority of the cited cases, we necessarily espouse the propositions of law involved here that when a new automobile (in this case a Lincoln Continental costing in excess of' $6,500) sold by a franchised dealer is materially defective mechanically and operationally, does not respond to reasonable efforts at correction or repair and proves to be what is known in the trade as a “lemon”,, the purchaser does not have a cause of action against the manufacturer for breach of implied warranty of fitness, because of absence of privity and because a manufacturer of automobiles, by entering into an agreement with its dealer specifying certain express warranties limits its warranty liability to those expressed, and thereby relieves-itself of any implied warranty of fitness..
In my opinion such holdings are deserving of reconsideration. See Hoskins v. Jackson Grain Co., Fla.1953, 63 So.2d 514; Matthews v. Lawnlite Company, Fla.1950, 88 So.2d 299; Continental Copper & Steel Indus, v. E. C. “Red” Cornelius, Fla.App.1958, 104 So.2d 40; Sperry Rand Corporation v. Industrial Supply Corporation, 5 Cir.1964, 337 F.2d 363, 370-371.
CARROLL, Judge
(concurring specially).
I concur because of the holding of this court in the Rozen case, followed in the Friedman case, in neither of which decisions did I participate.
By affirming the summary judgment in this case in favor of the defendant Ford Motor Company on the authority of the cited cases, we necessarily espouse the propositions of law involved here that when a new automobile (in this case a Lincoln Continental costing in excess of' $6,500) sold by a franchised dealer is materially defective mechanically and operationally, does not respond to reasonable efforts at correction or repair and proves to be what is known in the trade as a “lemon”,, the purchaser does not have a cause of action against the manufacturer for breach of implied warranty of fitness, because of absence of privity and because a manufacturer of automobiles, by entering into an agreement with its dealer specifying certain express warranties limits its warranty liability to those expressed, and thereby relieves-itself of any implied warranty of fitness..
In my opinion such holdings are deserving of reconsideration. See Hoskins v. Jackson Grain Co., Fla.1953, 63 So. 2d 514; Matthews v. Lawnlite Company, Fla.1950, 88 So. 2d 299; Continental Copper & Steel Indus, v. E. C. “Red” Cornelius, Fla.App.1958, 104 So. 2d 40; Sperry Rand Corporation v. Industrial Supply Corporation, 5 Cir.1964, 337 F. 2d 363, 370-371.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Manheim v. Ford Motor Co., 201 So. 2d 440 (Fla. 1967)…ERVIN, Justice. The District Court of Appeal Third District, certified to us that its decision in this case, reported in 194 So. 2d 54, passes upon a question of great public interest “in that it concerns the liability of automobile manufacturers to the ultimate purchasers of their products.” The petition recites that Plaintiff-Petitioner Alfred Manheim, sued Defendants-Respondent…
-
Desandolo v. F & C Tractor & Equip. Co., 211 So. 2d 576 (Fla. 4th DCA 1968)…e sale agreement. For the foregoing reasons, we hold the disclaimer is not invalid as against public policy and affirm the summary judgment. WALDEN, C. J., and WARREN, LAMAR, Associate Judge, concur. . Manheim v. Ford Motor Company, Fla.App.1967, 194 So. 2d 54. . In the ease of Rozen v. Chrysler Corp., Fla.App.1962, 142 So. 2d 735, the Third District had before it a suit by a purchaser of a Chrysler automobile against Chrysler Corporation, the manufacturer. The basis of the suit was an implied warranty o…1 / 2
-
Manheim v. Ford Motor Co., 201 So. 2d 909 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967)…PER CURIAM. Whereas, the judgment of this court was entered on January 31, 1967 (194 So. 2d 54) affirming the summary judgment of the Circuit Court for Dade County, Florida, in the above styled cause; and Whereas, on review of this court’s judgment, by certiorari, the Supreme Court of Florida, by its opinion and judgment filed July 19, 1967…
Authorities Cited
- Williams v. Surf Props., Inc., 88 So. 2d 299 (Fla. 1956)
- Cont'l Copper & Steel Indus., Inc. v. E. C. "RED" Cornelius, Inc., 104 So. 2d 40 (Fla. 3d DCA 1958)
- Hoskins v. Jackson Grain Co., 63 So. 2d 514 (Fla. 1953)
- Sperry Rand Corp. v. Indus. Supply Corp., 337 F.2d 363 (5th Cir. 1964)
- Rozen v. Chrysler Corp., 142 So. 2d 735 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962)
- Friedman v. Ford Motor Co., 179 So. 2d 371 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)