Pias v. Wiggins

Citations: 688 So. 2d 1103; 1996 WL 577168Docket: 96-499

Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal; October 9, 1996; Louisiana; State Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Michael G. Pias filed a redhibition suit against Randy E. Wiggins regarding a 1988 Cadillac Sedan Deville purchased for $6,900. The trial court ruled in favor of Pias, awarding him $3,238.19, which accounted for his repair costs of $3,488.19 minus $250 Wiggins had already paid for gasket repairs. The court found that the Cadillac had a non-apparent defect at the time of sale that necessitated an engine replacement, and determined that Pias would not have purchased the vehicle had he known of this defect. The court also concluded that Pias did not waive the implied warranty of the vehicle being free from hidden defects.

Additionally, Wiggins' counterclaim for defamation was denied without allowing him to present evidence. On appeal, the court upheld the finding that Pias did not waive his warranty rights but found error in denying Wiggins the opportunity to present evidence for his defamation claim. The case was remanded for a hearing on the merits of Wiggins' counterclaim. Notably, before the sale, Wiggins disclosed that the car had been in a rear-end collision, and Pias had the opportunity to inspect the vehicle, which was deemed in good condition by a mechanic. However, subsequent issues arose shortly after the purchase, including water in the engine oil and leaks, leading to the lawsuit.

Pias took a radiator to Bayou Radiator Shop, where repairs cost $72.54. Shortly after, the car's engine began making a knocking sound. Pias consulted Kelly, who suggested that driving the car could help restore the pistons' efficiency. On December 21, 1993, Pias received the car title from Wiggins along with a $250.00 check for an intake gasket replacement, but Wiggins denied any responsibility for the radiator repair costs. Shortly after, Pias's wife informed him the car had overheated, prompting him to retrieve them from Baton Rouge. Upon returning, Deborah Pias threatened Wiggins with a complaint to the media and potential pressure from State Farm unless he rescinded the sale. Pias then took the car to Turpin Pontiac, where Kelly diagnosed the need for a new engine, which he replaced for $3,107.70 on January 4, 1994. Kelly testified that the engine failure was caused by excessive use of 'stop-leak' in the radiator, finding significantly more than the normal amount present. Wiggins and Pias provided conflicting testimonies regarding the sale's warranty; Wiggins claimed he made it clear the car was sold "as is," while Pias contended he received no such indication. During trial, Wiggins's hearsay testimony about State Farm was objected to, but the court concluded Wiggins was not defamed. The trial judge requested post-trial memoranda on the issue of an oral warranty waiver. Wiggins challenged the trial court's finding that Pias did not waive implied warranties of fitness and freedom from defects, arguing that a written waiver is not mandated by the Civil Code. The court, while not explicitly requiring a written waiver, found Pias did not effectively waive the warranty. Relevant former Civil Code articles were cited, highlighting the seller's obligation to clarify warranty terms and the responsibilities of delivering and warranting the sold item.

La. Civ. Code art. 2476 outlines the seller's warranty, which ensures the buyer's peaceable possession and protects against hidden defects in sold goods. Waivers of these warranties do not need to be in writing, but jurisprudence requires three elements for an effective waiver: 1) clear and unambiguous written terms, 2) inclusion in the sale and chattel mortgage documents, and 3) the waiver must be brought to the buyer's attention or explained. The seller bears the burden of proving a waiver occurred. In this case, the trial court found that Wiggins failed to demonstrate that Pias effectively waived the warranties, as there was conflicting testimony and insufficient evidence to show that the waiver was adequately presented or explained to Pias. The waiver was also absent from the bill of sale. The court determined that even a verbal waiver would be inadequate against Pias, given the ambiguous nature of the waiver. 

Regarding Wiggins' defamation claim, the trial judge erred by not allowing him to present evidence, which is essential for a fair trial. Consequently, the court reversed the dismissal of the defamation claim and remanded for a new trial on that specific issue while affirming all other aspects of the trial court's judgment. The costs of the appeal are to be equally shared between Pias and Wiggins. The decision is thus reversed in part, affirmed in part, and remanded for further proceedings.