PILLGRENE v. PAULMAN, INC., 45 Del. 225 (1950)

71 A.2d 59

MICHAEL J. PILLGRENE v. JAMES J. PAULMAN, INC., a corporation of The State of Delaware.

Superior Court of Delaware, New Castle County.
January 30, 1950.

CAREY, J., sitting.

Harold Leshem for plaintiff.

David B. Coxe for defendant.

Superior Court for New Castle County, No. 247, Civil Action, 1948.

Action for damages for breach of warranty of title.

The plaintiff presented evidence tending to show that he had bought an automobile from the defendant; that several months thereafter he learned that the car was stolen property, the true owner being one Naples; that the plaintiff had thereupon surrendered the car to the State Police, who had returned it to Naples; that the plaintiff had paid the defendant Nineteen Hundred Seventy Five Dollars ($1,975) for the car, but that, because of unusual economic conditions, it was actually worth Two Thousand Twenty Five Dollars ($2,025) on the date it was surrendered to the police. No other items of damage were shown. The contention was made that plaintiff’s recovery should be limited to the purchase price plus interest.

CAREY, Judge.

While there is respectable authority to the contrary, it is my opinion that the plaintiff’s recovery in this case should be the value of the car on the date he lost possession of it, with interest. 3 Williston on Sales (Rev. Ed.) 383 and cases therein cited. The purpose of compensatory damages is to place the buyer in as

Page 226

good condition as he would have occupied had the title been good. The rule herein followed seems more in keeping with that purpose than the contrary principle. Of course, any discussion of the right to recover items of consequential damage, such as the expense of defending the title, is beyond present needs.

The charge to the jury respecting damages was in accordance with the foregoing opinion.