Gasque v. Mooers Motor Car Co., Inc.
227 Va. 154, 38 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. (West) 120, 313 S.E.2d 384 (1984)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Revocation of acceptance under Virginia's Uniform Commercial Code requires objective evidence of substantial impairment of the goods' value to the buyer and notice within a reasonable time, but continued personal use of the goods after giving notice of revocation is inconsistent with a buyer's duty and precludes the remedy. Furthermore, the remedy of revocation of acceptance is available only against the direct seller, not a remote manufacturer.
Facts:
- On February 21, 1979, Patricia E. Gasque and Earl L. Gasque (buyers) purchased a new 1979 Fiat station wagon, manufactured by Fiat Motors of North America, Inc., from Mooers Motor Car Co., Inc.
- After taking delivery, the Gasques reported numerous defects to Mooers, including water leaks, a loose gearshift lever, shifting difficulties, heater malfunction, inoperative clock and interior light, blown fuses, door issues, choke problems, excessive oil consumption, vibrations, and other noises.
- The Gasques returned the car to Mooers for service on at least seven occasions between March and August 1979, and Mooers performed repairs without charge, though some problems persisted, such as a recurring issue with the gearshift extension.
- On September 19, 1979, the Gasques' counsel wrote to Mooers and Fiat, demanding a full refund or replacement of the car.
- At the time of this demand, the car had been driven 5,400 miles.
- The Gasques continued to drive the Fiat, except when it was with Mooers for service, accumulating an additional 2,600 miles between the revocation demand (September 19, 1979) and the trial date (May 21, 1980), for a total of over 8,000 miles.
- In November 1979, the Gasques purchased a used Volkswagen and subsequently parked the Fiat permanently in their driveway.
Procedural Posture:
- On January 8, 1980, Patricia E. Gasque and Earl L. Gasque (buyers) filed a suit in equity against Mooers Motor Car Co., Inc. (Mooers) and Fiat Motors of North America, Inc. (Fiat) in a trial court, seeking cancellation of the sale and return of the purchase price or replacement of the car.
- The trial court heard evidence (testimony from witnesses) and, in a written opinion, held that the buyers did not show a substantial impairment of the car's value due to defects and that they failed to revoke their acceptance within a reasonable time.
- At trial, the court sustained Fiat’s motion to strike the evidence as to it, ruling that the remedy of rescission (revocation of acceptance) was not available against a party who had no direct contract with the buyer.
- A decree was entered by the trial court in favor of both defendants, Mooers and Fiat.
- The buyers appealed this decree to the Supreme Court of Virginia.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
1. Does a buyer’s continued substantial use of an automobile after notifying the seller of revocation of acceptance, and the buyer’s failure to present objective evidence of substantial impairment of the vehicle’s value for its ordinary purpose, preclude revocation of acceptance under Va. Code § 8.2-608? 2. Is the remedy of revocation of acceptance under Va. Code § 8.2-608 available against a remote manufacturer with whom the buyer has no direct contract of sale?
Opinions:
Majority - Russell, J.
No, a buyer’s continued substantial use of an automobile after notifying the seller of revocation of acceptance, and the buyer’s failure to present objective evidence of substantial impairment of the vehicle’s value for its ordinary purpose, precludes revocation of acceptance under Va. Code § 8.2-608. No, the remedy of revocation of acceptance is not available against a remote manufacturer. The Court affirmed the trial court's rulings, finding that the buyers failed to meet the prerequisites for revocation of acceptance under Code § 8.2-608. The Court held that a buyer must offer objective evidence that (1) the goods fail to conform to the contract of sale, and (2) that the nonconformity substantially impairs the value of the goods to that particular buyer. While the impairment test is to the particular buyer, the evidence must be objective, not merely that the buyer's "faith has been shaken." In the absence of proof of a special need for the car, the court could infer its purpose was ordinary transportation, for which it was substantially fulfilling given it was driven over 8,000 miles, including 2,600 miles after the notice of revocation. The trial court's application of a "driveability" standard was not erroneous. The Court also found that while the delay in giving notice of revocation might have been reasonable due to Mooers' ongoing repair efforts, the buyers' continued use of the car for 2,600 miles after giving notice was inconsistent with their position as a bailee holding the car for the seller. Such personal use did not meet the standard of commercial reasonableness. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that the remedy of revocation of acceptance is solely available against the seller of goods, not against a remote manufacturer. This is because revocation is a contractual remedy that cancels the sale, restores title and possession to the seller, and returns the purchase price to the buyer, aiming to restore the contracting parties to the status quo ante. A remote manufacturer, not being a party to the sale transaction, has no role in such a restoration. While Virginia law abolishes lack of privity for damages from negligence or breach of warranty, revocation of acceptance is conceptually distinct and applicable only to direct parties to the sales contract.
Analysis:
This case is significant for clarifying two key aspects of revocation of acceptance under the UCC in Virginia. First, it establishes an objective standard for proving 'substantial impairment of value,' moving beyond subjective claims and requiring concrete evidence related to the goods' conformity to the contract and their utility for the buyer's intended purpose (typically ordinary use for an automobile). Second, it reinforces the principle that a buyer cannot continue to use goods extensively after providing notice of revocation, as such use undermines the claim of impairment and is inconsistent with the buyer's duty to hold the goods as a bailee for the seller. Finally, the case draws a clear distinction between remedies against direct sellers (like revocation of acceptance) and potential remedies against remote manufacturers (like damages for breach of warranty or negligence), reiterating that revocation of acceptance is a contractual remedy tied to the direct sales transaction.
