Townsend v. Boat and Motor Mart
Boat and Motor Mart appeals from a judgment entered against it for breach of express and implied warranties under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (the Act) (Civ. Code, 1790 et seq.) in connection with its sale of a boat to James and Diane Townsend (the Townsends). Boat and Motor Mart contends: (1) the trial court erred in awarding the Townsends a refund of the purchase price as well as allowing them to keep the boat; (2) the court should have required the Townsends to elect between remedies for express warranty and implied warranty; (3) Boat and Motor Mart was not liable for breach of express warranty, because it did not give an express warranty and because the Townsends did not allow a reasonable opportunity for repairs to be made; (4) there was no breach of any implied warranty because the boat did not actually malfunction; (5) the jurys award of incidental damages was not supported by the evidence; and (6) Boat and Motor Mart was the prevailing party on the Townsends breach of contract cause of action and, despite losing on the warranty claims, was entitled to recover its attorney fees and costs as the prevailing party under section 1717. The Townsends oppose these contentions and, in their cross appeal, argue that the trial court should have awarded them damages for breach of implied warranties as well as for breach of express warranty.
Court conclude that the Townsends were not entitled to relief under an express warranty theory, but they are entitled to the damages awarded by the jury for breach of implied warranties. Court further conclude that the trial court did not err in denying Boat and Motor Marts request for attorney fees. Because these rulings resolve the matter, it is unnecessary to decide the other issues raised by the parties. The judgment will be vacated and remanded for entry of a new judgment consistent with this opinion.
Comments on Townsend v. Boat and Motor Mart