Chamberlain v. Bob Matick Chevrolet, Inc
In Chamberlain v. Bob Matick Chevrolet, Inc., 4 Conn. Cir. Ct. 685, 239 A.2d 42 (1967), the plaintiff bought a used 1958 Chevrolet from the defendant. Id., 687. The defendant's salesman, at the time of the sale, told the plaintiff that the car's master cylinder needed to be fixed. Id.
Knowing this, the plaintiff still purchased the car. Id., 688. Shortly thereafter, the car developed an oil leak, and the plaintiff's son brought it to an oil dealer. Id. The oil dealer detected some worn and defective parts that required replacement for the safe operation of the car. Id., 689.
This information was not communicated to the plaintiff, to her son or to the defendant until late in September, 1965. Id.
On September 29, 1965, the plaintiff's husband wrote a letter to the defendant, claiming that the plaintiff was entitled to rescission because of the alleged breach of warranty as evidenced by the claimed defects. Id. The plaintiff's husband offered to return the car upon the return of the money paid. Id.
The Appellate Division of the Circuit Court held that the evidence sustained the trial court's finding that the seller had not breached its "warranty of implied fitness"; id., 689; in the sale of the used vehicle. Id., 695-96.