In 2001, Doppes bought a new Bentley Arnage from Newport Auto Center. Shortly after taking delivery of the vehicle, Doppes noticed an "obnoxious odor" inside the vehicle. After 171 days without his new Bentley, which the dealership was unable to deodorize, Doppes requested a replacement vehicle from Bentley Motors. Bentley Motors denied this request.
Doppes successfully sued Bentley Motors and the dealership on numerous causes of action, including the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act. In awarding damages to Doppes, the trial court allowed for prejudgment interest of 7% per year from April 2002 when the vehicle was purchased until the entry of judgment. Eight months after the judgment was entered, Bentley moved to set aside the judgment under California Code of Civil Procedure § 473(d). Bentley based its motion on the argument that the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act does not allow prejudgment interest, and thus the award exceeded the jurisdiction of the trial court. The trial court overruled Bentley's § 473(d) motion, and Bentley appealed.
The appellate court affirmed the overruling of the § 473(d) motion on the grounds that California Civil Code § 3287 allows for any person awarded damages to recover interest on those damages "from any such debtor" and the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act at California Civil Code § 1794 allows a customer damaged by violations of the Act to bring an action for damages, costs, expenses, reasonable attorney fees and civil penalties.
This decision is important for all business owners because the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act potentially applies to every sale of consumer goods sold at retail in California. The Act is very strict about the type of formalities with which a manufacturer, distributor and retailor must comply to circumvent the implied warranty of fitness, less any party in the stream of commerce be liable not only for damages, but prejudgment interest on those damages.
CAVEAT VENDITOR; LET THE SELLER BEWARE.
No comments:
Post a Comment