Bennett v. Hayes
53 Cal. App.3d 700, 125 Cal.Rptr. 825 (1975) (1975)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the California Automotive Repair Act, a contract for automotive repairs is rendered unenforceable if the repair dealer fails to provide the customer with a written estimate as required by statute, thereby barring any recovery for the work performed, including on equitable grounds.
Facts:
- On August 24, 1973, a customer brought his 1964 Jaguar sedan to The European Stable, an automotive repair shop.
- The customer and the shop owner orally agreed to specific repairs for the front brake, radio, and lubrication for a total of $187.
- The European Stable did not provide the customer with a written estimate for the agreed-upon work.
- After completing the initial work, the shop informed the customer that the rear brakes also needed repair and could not return the car to its original state without additional cost.
- The customer, feeling he had no other viable alternative, verbally authorized an additional $200 for the rear brake repair.
- The customer did not receive any written description of the work performed until the car was delivered to him with a final bill for $500.
Procedural Posture:
- The European Stable (plaintiff) sued the Jaguar owner (defendant) in municipal court for breach of contract and recovery of the agreed price.
- The municipal court entered a judgment in favor of the defendant.
- The plaintiff, as appellant, appealed the judgment to the appellate department of the superior court.
- The superior court certified the case for transfer to the Court of Appeal to settle an important question of law.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an automotive repair dealer's failure to provide a customer with a written estimate, as required by California Business and Professions Code § 9884.9, bar the dealer from recovering any payment for the work performed?
Opinions:
Majority - The Court
Yes, an automotive repair dealer's failure to provide a written estimate as required by statute bars any recovery for the work performed. Business and Professions Code § 9884.9 was enacted to protect consumers and foster fair dealing, and allowing a dealer to recover payment despite violating the statute would circumvent its purpose. Drawing an analogy to consumer protection statutes governing conditional sales contracts, the court found that a violation of such a provision makes the contract unenforceable by the seller or dealer. The primary purpose of this rule is to discourage practices forbidden by law, which outweighs concerns of unjust enrichment. Therefore, the contract is illegal and unenforceable, and the dealer is also precluded from recovery in quasi-contract or quantum meruit.
Analysis:
This decision establishes a strict precedent for consumer protection statutes in California, making compliance a prerequisite for contract enforceability. It signals that courts will prioritize the public policy goal of deterring illegal business practices over equitable principles like preventing unjust enrichment. The ruling puts service providers on notice that failure to adhere to statutory requirements, such as providing written estimates, can result in a complete forfeiture of payment. This strengthens the position of consumers by creating a powerful incentive for businesses to comply with consumer protection laws.
