Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Weiss v. Saffell

Supreme Court of Arizona

July 9, 1957

Leo W. WEISS and Sylvia Weiss, husband and wife, Appellants,
Ralph SAFFELL and Sam Saffell, copartners, doing business as Saffell's Air Conditioning Company, Appellees.

Page 391

Virginia Hash and Edgar Hash, Phoenix, for appellants.

Abbott H. Goldenkoff and Clark & Coker, Phoenix, for appellees.

[82 Ariz. 317] UDALL, Chief Justice.

This is an appeal from a judgment entered in favor of plaintiffs-appellees, Ralph and Sam Saffell, copartners, doing business as Saffell's Air Conditioning Company, for furnishing and installing an airconditioning system in the home of defendants-appellants, Leo Weiss and his wife Sylvia. The parties will hereinafter be designated as they were in the lower court, i. e., plaintiffs and defendants, except where specific parties need be identified.

Plaintiffs' complaint alleged generally the following: that in May 1953 the parties entered into a written contract whereby plaintiffs agreed to furnish and install an air-conditioning system in the home of defendants located in Phoenix, for the sum of $2,675, which amount was subsequently increased by $55.23 through a modification of the agreement, thus raising the price to $2,730.23. It was alleged that plaintiffs performed all of the conditions prescribed in the contract to be performed by them, but that defendants had failed to perform the contract on their part, thereby becoming indebted to plaintiffs in the last named sum. The contract sued upon provided the purchasers (Weiss) would pay interest on all unpaid sums of money, plus an attorney's fee for collection.

By their answer defendants admitted only that they entered into the written contract; they denied all other allegations, including a denial that the original purchase was $2,675 or that it was thereafter increased to $2,730.23 by a modification of the agreement. The affirmative allegation was made by defendants that it was agreed between the parties that the system to be installed was '* * * for the specific purpose of improving the health of defendant's son and that plaintiffs expressly agreed and warranted that the installation of said * * * system * * * would improve the health of said child by warranting and promising to defendants that all dust, pollen, molds and other harmful substances in the air would be completely removed * * *.' Defendants then alleged that the system had failed to work properly in any respect and made constant noise, vibrated, and was not effective in hot weather in maintaining 'the proper lower temperature' in their house.

Trial was had to the court sitting without a jury. Plaintiff Ralph Saffell and one of the employees testified in behalf of plaintiffs, and defendant Sylvia Weiss was the only witness called by defendants. No findings of fact or conclusions of law were requested or made. Judgment was thereafter entered for plaintiffs for the full amount sued for with interest and costs, plus $250 for attorneys' fees. Motion for new trial having been denied, the judgment

Page 392

was paid in full and thereafter a timely notice of appeal was filed.

[82 Ariz. 318] In the eight assignments of error and thirteen propositions of law defendants in effect challenge the judgment of the lower court as being erroneous for the following reasons: (a) generally, the judgment was both contrary to law and not supported by the evidence; (b) in the sale of goods there is, by statute, an implied warranty of quality and fitness; (c) the court failed to apply the principles of implied warranty of workmanship under the terms of the contract, i. e., the subject of the contract and the nature of plaintiffs' business would require that the court 'write into' the contract such a warranty; (d) the record discloses misrepresentations to appellants of material facts by plaintiffs and their agents; (e) the court did not apply all the terms of the contract, viz., the agreement provided that title to the equipment installed remained in plaintiffs until payment was made, and it was subject to removal by plaintiffs if payments were not made; thus, it is contended, plaintiffs had the duty to remove the equipment and thereby mitigate damages. Defendants conclude the court failed to observe and enforce this portion of the contract. Finally, (f) it is claimed by reason of the court's alleged error in (e) above, the damages awarded were excessive.

In their answering brief plaintiffs suggest there is actually but one real issue presented by this appeal, namely, whether there is reasonable evidence to support the judgment. Our perusal of the record, taking the evidence in a light most favorable to sustaining the judgment, confirms such limitation of issues here. Most of defendants' numerous assignments of error and propositions of law concern matters for which no factual predicates exist.

For instance, there is no factual basis in this record upon which to base defendants' claim of breach of an express or an implied warranty on the part of plaintiffs. The evidence shows that defendants had a young son afflicted with a severe case of hay fever and asthma. The child was allergic to many things such as pollen and dust, and the family doctors, specialists in this field, had recommended the installation of a refrigeration unit and an electronic filter in the home for his relief. Also, Mrs. Weiss testified that she had studied the problem and was convinced such an installation would be helpful in relieving this condition. She admitted that she contacted plaintiffs looking toward such a purchase and that one Joe Wyatt of the Saffell firm came to call upon her, and, after she had explained the situation, Wyatt said '* * * he was quite sure that it would give the child the relief that the doctors claimed it would, * * * it will not be any noise and you will be very satisfied and I am sure that Joey would feel better.' Later, when plaintiff Ralph [82 Ariz. 319] Saffell came to see her, he reportedly said, '* * * It will relieve, because it is a known fact from literature and from anybody who has a system in there who suffers from that gets a relief.'

Defendant introduced two exhibits which consisted of General Electric literature indicating that use of its appliances produced 'clean, healthful comfort * * *', would 'help provide real relief for many respiratory allergy sufferers', 'kitten quiet', that its equipment 'filters out dirt, dust, pollen' and is 'so quiet, so peaceful'.

This was the extent of defendants' proof of warranty. Mrs. Weiss did testify that neither the refrigeration or filter units operated properly, that there was unbearable noise, and she was bitterly disappointed with the installation because her son's health did not improve as a result thereof. Defendants called no experts in the air-conditioning field to prove the installations were improperly made or that the equipment furnished was in any way defective.

As against this evidence, or lack of evidence, the plaintiffs established that the refrigeration unit was manufactured by General Electric (the make of the filter unit is not ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.