Isip v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC

Opinion

In this action for breach of written and implied warranties in the sale of a car, defendant and appellant Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC (MBUSA), appeals from a judgment following a jury trial in favor of plaintiff and respondent Marisa Isip (Isip) in the amount of $20,000. MBUSA contends the trial court erred by refusing its proposed jury instruction on the implied warranty of merchantability. We conclude there was no instructional error and affirm the judgment.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On June 21, 2004, Isip purchased a 2004 Mercedes-Benz C320 from a Mercedes-Benz dealership. She paid $46,797.84, with financing, and no downpayment. She received a four-year/50,000-mile bumper-to-bumper warranty. The warranty provided that any authorized center “will make any repairs or replacements necessary to correct defects in material or workmanship arising during the warranty period.”

DISCUSSION

MBUSA contends the jury was not correctly instructed on the implied warranty of merchantability. MBUSA does not contend that the instruction given substantially in the language of CACI No. 3210 was erroneous, only that the trial court erred in rejecting MBUSA’s special instruction and adding language that “[fjitness for the ordinary purpose of a vehicle means that the vehicle should be in safe condition and substantially free of defects.” MBUSA contends that its special instruction correctly states the law and the trial court’s does not.

The legal adequacy of jury instructions is a legal issue subject to the de novo standard of appellate review. (Sander/Moses Productions, Inc. v. NBC Studios, Inc. (2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 1086 , 1094-1095 [ 48 Cal.Rptr.3d 525 ]; National Medical Transportation Network v. Deloitte & Touche (1998) 62 Cal.App.4th 412 , 439 [ 72 Cal.Rptr.2d 720 ].)

The Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act provides a right of action for a consumer who is damaged by a warrantor’s failure to comply with an implied warranty that arises under state law. ( 15 U.S.C. §§ 2301 (7), 2310(d)(1).) In California, an implied warranty of merchantability arises under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act: “Unless disclaimed in the manner prescribed by this chapter, every sale of consumer goods that are sold at retail in this state shall be accompanied by the manufacturer’s and the retail seller’s implied warranty that the goods are merchantable.” (Civ. Code, § 1792.) The “ ‘[i]mplied warranty of merchantability’ or ‘implied warranty that goods are merchantable’ means that the consumer goods meet each of the following: [¶] (1) Pass without objection in the trade under the contract description. [¶]

The instructions given by the trial court, and that proposed by MBUSA, are similar in one respect. Both instructions indicate the warranty of merchantability requires that the vehicle was fit for the ordinary purpose for which it was intended. The primary difference in the instructions is the trial court’s inclusion of language defining a vehicle as being fit for its ordinary purpose if it is “in safe condition and substantially free from defects,” as opposed to MBUSA’s proposed language that a vehicle is unfit “only if the vehicle manifests a defect that is so basic that it renders the vehicle unfit for its ordinary purpose of providing transportation.”

MBUSA finds support for its proposed instruction in descriptive language in American Suzuki Motor Corp. v. Superior Court (1995) 37 Cal.App.4th 1291 , 1296 [ 44 Cal.Rptr.2d 526 ] (American Suzuki). “Courts in other jurisdictions have held that in the case of automobiles, the implied warranty of merchantability can be breached only if the vehicle manifests a defect that is so basic it renders the vehicle unfit for its ordinary purpose of providing transportation.” (Ibid.)

The above quoted language in American Suzuki was from a much different context than that presented in the instant appeal. The issue in American Suzuki was whether the trial court had properly certified for class treatment the plaintiffs’ claims that vehicles they had purchased were prone to rolling over and therefore breached the implied warranty of merchantability. (American Suzuki, supra, 37 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1294-1299.) However, because the majority of the plaintiffs’ vehicles had not rolled over, the claim was too speculative to warrant class certification. It was in the context of discussing cases in which no damage had been suffered that the court wrote that a vehicle violates the implied warranty of merchantability only if the vehicle is unfit for its ordinary purpose of providing transportation. (Id. at pp. 1296-1297.)

The discussion in American Suzuki does not support MBUSA’s proposed jury instruction for two distinct reasons. First, unlike American Suzuki, which essentially was a case at the pleading stage, the instant case is before us after trial upon a set of facts supporting a finding that there was an implied breach of the warranty of merchantability. It is noteworthy that MBUSA does not contend on appeal that the record lacks substantial evidence to support a finding of a breach of the implied warranty. Second, the language in American Suzuki which MBUSA drafted into its proposed jury instruction was a general discussion of the law, and was not intended to be incorporated into a pattern jury instruction.

We therefore turn to whether the language added to CACI No. 3210 by the trial court was correct. As defined in the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, “an implied warranty of merchantability guarantees that ‘consumer goods meet each of the following: [¶] (1) Pass without objection in the trade under the contract description. [¶] (2) Are fit for the ordinary purposes for which such goods are used, [¶] (3) Are adequately contained, packaged, and labeled. [¶] (4) Conform to the promises or affirmations of fact made on the container or label.’ (Civ. Code, § 1791.1, subd. (a).)” (Mocek v. Alfa Leisure, Inc. (2003) 114 Cal.App.4th 402 , 406 [ 7 Cal.Rptr.3d 546 ].) Unlike an express warranty, “the implied warranty of merchantability arises by operation of law” and “ ‘provides for a minimum level of quality.’ ” (American Suzuki, supra, 37 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1295-1296.) “The California Uniform Commercial Code separates implied warranties into two categories. An implied warranty that the goods ‘shall be merchantable’ and ‘fit for the ordinary purpose’ is contained in California Uniform Commercial Code section 2314. Whereas an implied warranty that the goods shall be fit for a particular purpose is contained in section 2315. [¶] Thus, there exists in every contract for the sale of goods by a merchant a warranty that the goods shall be merchantable. The core test of merchantability is fitness for the ordinary purpose for which such goods are used. (§ 2314.)” (Atkinson v. Elk Corporation of Texas (2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 212 , 228 [ 48 Cal.Rptr.3d 247 ], fn. omitted; see also Hauter v. Zogarts (1975) 14 Cal.3d 104 , 117-118 [ 120 Cal.Rptr. 681 , 534 P.2d 377 ].)

To the extent MBUSA argues that its special instmction was correct because there was no issue in the case whether the car would “pass without objection in the trade,” we disagree with the argument. While Isip did not mention the “pass without objection in the trade” prong of the implied warranty in her argument to the jury, she presented evidence concerning it at trial and the jury was instructed on it. In fact, MBUSA asked the court to instruct on it. MBUSA did not object that such an instruction was not warranted by the evidence. Indeed, evidence was adduced that malodorous air-conditioning, a leaking transmission, transmission hesitation, and Isip’s clanking brake problem were not normal for a car.

We reject MBUSA’s argument that the additional language in the trial court’s instruction was improper because it would entitle a buyer to full rescission damages without having to give the dealer an opportunity to repair if the car had any defects, no matter how trivial. The measure of damages the jury was instructed on for breach of the implied warranty was the difference in the value of the car as warranted and as delivered. The jury was instructed rescission damages (return of the purchase price less value of use) could be awarded only if MBUSA “did not repair substantial defects in the vehicle to match the written warranty after a reasonable number of opportunities.” MBUSA does not complain about this instruction. MBUSA has not established reversible error.

The judgment is affirmed. Costs on appeal are awarded to Isip.

Turner, P. J., and Armstrong, J., concurred.

Appellant’s petition for review by the Supreme Court was denied November 28, 2007, S157543.