Ingersoll v. Star Chrysler, Inc.

7 Citing cases

  1. Rosenthal v. Clearview Dodge Sales

    464 So. 2d 777 (La. Ct. App. 1985)   Cited 3 times

    In every redhibition action, if the evidence establishes only a partial failure of consideration, the court has the power and duty to decree a recovery in quanti minoris, i.e., a reduction of the purchase price. La.Civil Code Article 2543; Ingersoll v. Star-Chrysler, Inc., 234 So.2d 85, 87 (La.App. 4th Cir. 1970). We hold that the trial court did not abuse his discretion in finding that the nature of the problems did not amount to a redhibitory defect.

  2. Lumpkin v. Steven's Homes, Leesville

    452 So. 2d 406 (La. Ct. App. 1984)   Cited 1 times

    Defendants argue that the defects in plaintiffs' mobile home are not serious enough to render the mobile home "either absolutely useless, or its use so inconvenient and imperfect, that it must be supposed that the buyer would not have purchased it, had he known of the vice." LSA-C.C. Art. 2520. Defendant Mays cites two cases, Cernigliaro v. Marquis Marine, Inc., 381 So.2d 886 (La.App. 2nd Cir. 1980) and Ingersoll v. Star Chrysler, Inc., 234 So.2d 85 (La.App. 4th Cir. 1970), writ denied 256 La. 366, 236 So.2d 499 (1970), for the proposition that if the evidence establishes only a partial failure of consideration the trial court has the power and the duty to decree a reduction of the purchase price. The cases cited by Mays involve a boat and an automobile.

  3. Coleman v. Landry Turner, Inc.

    423 So. 2d 41 (La. Ct. App. 1982)   Cited 5 times
    In Coleman v. Landry Turner, Inc., 423 So.2d 41 (La.App. 1st Cir. 1982), the court concluded that loose moldings, crooked walls, leaky doors, scratched ceiling panels and cold air drafts established only a partial failure of consideration and did not render the mobile home useless or its use so inconvenient to justify rescission of the sale.

    If the evidence in a redhibitory action establishes only a partial failure of consideration, a reduction in the price, rather than rescission of the sale, is appropriate. Wade v. McInnis-Peterson Chevrolet, Inc., 307 So.2d 798 (La.App. 1st Cir. 1975); Wolfe v. Henderson Ford, Inc., 277 So.2d 215 (La.App. 3rd Cir. 1973); Ingersoll v. Star Chrysler, Inc., 234 So.2d 85 (La.App. 4th Cir.), cert. denied, 256 La. 365, 236 So.2d 499 (La. 1970). See also LSA-C.C. arts. 2541, 2543.

  4. Killeen v. Ducote

    405 So. 2d 1281 (La. Ct. App. 1981)

    "In every redhibitory action if the evidence establishes only a partial failure of consideration, a reduction in the purchase price may be granted to the buyer. See Ingersoll v. Star Chrysler, Inc., La.App., 234 So.2d 85 (4 Cir. 1970), writ refused 256 La. 365, 236 So.2d 499 (1970); Wolfe v. Henderson Ford, Inc., La.App., 277 So.2d 215 (3 Cir. 1973). See also LSA-C.C. Arts. 2541, 2543.

  5. Cassey v. Arnaudville Industries, Inc.

    393 So. 2d 215 (La. Ct. App. 1981)   Cited 7 times
    Acknowledging court's authority to award quanti minoris remedy against manufacturer in absence of privity

    "In every redhibitory action if the evidence establishes only a partial failure of consideration, a reduction in the purchase price may be granted to the buyer. See Ingersoll v. Star Chrysler, Inc., La.App., 234 So.2d 85 (4 Cir. 1970), writ refused 256 La. 365, 236 So.2d 499 (1970); Wolfe v. Henderson Ford, Inc., La.App., 277 So.2d 215 (3 Cir. 1973). See also LSA-C.C. Arts. 2541, 2543.

  6. Wade v. McInnis-Peterson Chevrolet

    307 So. 2d 798 (La. Ct. App. 1975)   Cited 37 times

    In every redhibitory action if the evidence establishes only a partial failure of consideration, a reduction in the purchase price may be granted to the buyer. See Ingersoll v. Star Chrysler, Inc., La.App., 234 So.2d 85 (4 Cir. 1970), writ refused 256 La. 365, 236 So.2d 499 (1970); Wolfe v. Henderson Ford, Inc., La.App., 277 So.2d 215 (3 Cir. 1973). See also LSA-C.C. Arts. 2541, 2543.

  7. R.O. Roy Co. v. a W Trailer Sales

    277 So. 2d 204 (La. Ct. App. 1973)   Cited 5 times

    However, to support such a responsive decree the plaintiff bears the burden of establishing not only the existence of the defects of which he complains, but also the amount of reduction to which he is entitled. Coco v. Mack Motor Truck Corp., supra; Ehrlich v. Roby Motors Co., 166 La. 557, 117 So. 590 (1928); Ingersoll v. Star Chrysler, Inc., 234 So.2d 85 (La.App. 4th Cir. 1970); Papa v. Louisiana Metal Awning Company, supra; Harding v. Ed Taussig Edsel Motors, Inc., 130 So.2d 517 (La.App. 3d Cir. 1961); Loeb v. Neilson, 128 So.2d 447 (La.App. 4th Cir. 1961); Lillis v. Anderson, 21 So.2d 389 (La.App. Orl. 1945); Reimann Const. Co., Inc. v. Upton, 178 So. 528 (La.App.Orl. 1938). In the present suit plaintiff did not pray for such relief nor did he introduce any evidence on which any particular amount of reduction could be based.