Decision: Hodges v. Johnson

January 30th. The Kansas Supreme Court has issued its decision in Hodges v. Johnson (No. 97,062), a dispute over the implied warranty of merchantability (which applies to all commercial transactions in Kansas) on a used car. In an opinion written by Justice Davis, a unanimous court overturned the Court of Appeals and ruled that the implied warranty can apply to air conditioning systems in a car. Notes: Robert Davis, the author of the opinion is now the Chief Justice of the Court following the retirement of previous Chief Justice Kay McFarland. At the time this case was argued, McFarland was still on the Court. Justice Nuss was recused from this case. His place was taken by Senior Judge Edward Larson.

In January 2005 Dr and Mrs Hodges bought a 1995 Mercedes with 135,000 miles on it from Jim Johnson’s luxury used car dealership in Saline County. Johnson told the Hodges that he had been driving the vehicle and that it was a “perfect car”. About a month later, on first using the air conditioner the Hodges discovered the air conditioner did not work properly. On two occasions their mechanic added freon to the system, but it failed again in May and he reported that several components needed replacing at a cost of $3-4000. Around the same time it was discovered that Johnson had had a mechanic add a product called Super Seal to the AC when he was using the car himself. This mechanic stated that he would not have recommended doing this since Super Seal caused problems with AC systems. The Hodges requested that Johnson pay the costs of the repairs, he refused.

The Hodges then brought a Small Claims Court action which they won, winning around $3500 in damages. Johnson appealed this case to the District Court. When this step is taken the case is retried by the District Court. The Hodges won again, however the District Court refused to award them attorney fees on the grounds that Johnson had not deliberately misrepresented the car. Both Johnson and the Hodges appealed to the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals overturned both rulings of the District Court, noting that the District Court was bound by the wording of the statute to award costs to the Hodges if they won, but found that as a matter of law the implied warranty of merchantability did not extend to an air conditioning system since the primary use of the car was unaffected.

The Kansas Supreme Court has reversed this ruling of the Court of Appeals finding it not to be based on established precedent or the plain language of the statute in question (K.S.A. 84-2-314). The warranty attaches to all sales as a matter of law and covers the ordinary uses of the goods sold, not just their primary ones. Exactly which aspects of a particular transaction are covered by the warranty is a question of fact, to be determined on a case by case basis by the District Court. Existing case law should govern this fact-based determination: the Court reiterates a 1980s decision which notes that differences apply between a nearly-new used car and a junker ready for scrap and the way the car was sold along with its price play a role in this.

The Court upheld the Court of Appeals’ decision on Attorney fees, and therefore ordered the District Court to hold a hearing on the appropriate award to make to the Hodges on this matter. It also upheld the statutory arrangement for attorney fees in cases appealed from the Small Claims Court (where only the victor in that Court can be awarded costs if they prevail again in District Court) against an Equal Protection challenge by Johnson. The Court ruled that this passes the Rational Basis test since anyone choosing to lodge an appeal from the Small Claims Court does so knowing that they will be incurring legal costs, while those choosing that venue generally do so without representation and in the knowledge that damages are capped at $4000.

Finally, the opinion awarded the Hodges attorney fees for their successful appeal to the Kansas Supreme Court, amounting to a further $4000 Johnson must pay.

Advertisements

Tags: ,

2 Responses to “Decision: Hodges v. Johnson”

  1. servicii curatenie timisoara Says:

    Hi, i think that i noticed you visited my web site so i
    got here to return the choose?.I am trying to fond things to enhance my
    site!I suppose its good enough to make usse of
    some of your ideas!!

  2. free vin Says:

    Yours is a point of view where real intelligence shines through. Buy a used car wisely!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: