{
  "id": 8521224,
  "name": "JEFFREY STEVEN RUSSELL and wife, STEPHNEY WRIGHT RUSSELL, Plaintiffs-Appellees v. DAROLD T. BAITY d/b/a BAITY'S HEATING AND AIR CONDITIONING COMPANY; and PUCKETT ENTERPRISES, INC., Defendants-Appellants",
  "name_abbreviation": "Russell v. Baity",
  "decision_date": "1989-09-05",
  "docket_number": "No. 8823SC1386",
  "first_page": "422",
  "last_page": "426",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "95 N.C. App. 422"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.C. Ct. App.",
    "id": 14983,
    "name": "North Carolina Court of Appeals"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "253 S.E.2d 277",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1979,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "40 N.C. App. 557",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8551787
      ],
      "year": 1979,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/40/0557-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "189 S.E.2d 221",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1972,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "281 N.C. 506",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8575366
      ],
      "year": 1972,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/281/0506-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "300 S.E.2d 37",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1983,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "60 N.C. App. 634",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8523262
      ],
      "year": 1983,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/60/0634-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "271 S.E.2d 407",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1980,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "49 N.C. App. 329",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8521191
      ],
      "year": 1980,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/49/0329-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "197 S.E.2d 549",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1973,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "283 N.C. 640",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8559717
      ],
      "year": 1973,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/283/0640-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 377,
    "char_count": 7768,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.746,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.20549441299473445
    },
    "sha256": "2d8b456e71cc2d9710ce046f5f7218367ce2fafd386b7c52d7eaab58f446f998",
    "simhash": "1:c7e3d5193c0fdaec",
    "word_count": 1210
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:25:49.576177+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges ORR and LEWIS concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "JEFFREY STEVEN RUSSELL and wife, STEPHNEY WRIGHT RUSSELL, Plaintiffs-Appellees v. DAROLD T. BAITY d/b/a BAITY\u2019S HEATING AND AIR CONDITIONING COMPANY; and PUCKETT ENTERPRISES, INC., Defendants-Appellants"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "HEDRICK, Chief Judge.\nDefendant argues \u201cthe trial court erred in denying the motions of defendant Baity to dismiss at the close of all the plaintiffs evidence.\u201d Defendant contends that since plaintiffs \u201cundertook to build their own house . . . [plaintiffs] had a substantial responsibility to fully investigate the component parts of the house. . . .\u201d Defendant further argues somewhat confusingly that even though the written contract signed by the parties on 1 February 1985 provided that the equipment and work were \u201cto meet state and local codes,\u201d defendant did not make any express warranties because such representations were \u201cdone in the context of representations which were made by someone other than defendant Baity.\u201d\nIn ruling on a motion for a directed verdict pursuant to G.S. 1A-1, Rule 50(a), the court must consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmovant. Summey v. Cauthen, 283 N.C. 640, 197 S.E.2d 549 (1973). Also, the court must resolve any contradictions, conflicts and inconsistencies in the evidence in the non-movant\u2019s favor in determining the sufficiency of the evidence to withstand a motion for a directed verdict. Tripp v. Pate, 49 N.C. App. 329, 271 S.E.2d 407 (1980). The motion may only be granted if the evidence is insufficient to justify a verdict for the plaintiff as a matter of law. Colony Associates v. Fred L. Clapp & Co., 60 N.C. App. 634, 300 S.E.2d 37 (1983). In determining if a judgment notwithstanding the verdict under G.S. 1A-1, Rule 50(b) should be granted, the same factors are considered as in the directed verdict decision. Id.\nThe evidence in the present case is clearly sufficient to support the jury\u2019s verdict and the judgment entered thereon that defendant Baity impliedly and expressly warranted to plaintiffs that the heating system would \u201cmeet state and local codes\u201d and be fit for the ordinary purposes for which such systems are used. These assignments of error are overruled.\nDefendant next asserts the \u201ctrial court erred in limiting the liability of codefendant Puckett Enterprises, Inc. to defendant Baity to the sum of $2,084.78.\u201d This assignment of error is based on an exception to the trial judge\u2019s conclusion that \u201cdefendant, Puckett\u2019s liability, as between defendant, Baity, and defendant, Puckett, should be restricted to the sum of $2,084.78,\u201d citing, Wilson v. Chemical Co., 281 N.C. 506, 189 S.E.2d 221 (1972), and Lyon v. Shelter Resources Corp., 40 N.C. App. 557, 253 S.E.2d 277 (1979). Defendant argues that he, as a retailer, should be able to recover his entire loss from the manufacturer, defendant Puckett, since defendant Baity resold the heating system to plaintiffs with the same warranties as defendant manufacturer made. We disagree.\nThe parties, according to the judgment, \u201cstipulated that the issue of respective liability of each defendant should be reserved for decision by the Court after the jury answered the issues submitted. . . This stipulation authorized the trial judge to determine the amount of each defendant\u2019s liability to the plaintiffs after the issues had been answered by the jury. By this stipulation, defendant Baity, in effect, authorized the trial judge to determine defendant Puckett\u2019s liability to defendant Baity from the evidence presented. The trial judge\u2019s decision in this regard is final.\nPlaintiffs\u2019 sole argument on appeal relates to the trial court\u2019s entering a judgment directing a verdict for defendants with respect to plaintiffs\u2019 unfair and deceptive trade practices claim pursuant to G.S. 75-1.1 et seq.\nWhile the evidence is clearly sufficient to support the jury\u2019s verdict finding that defendants breached both express and implied warranties, we hold the evidence is not sufficient to support plaintiff\u2019s claim for unfair and deceptive trade practices with respect to the sale and installation of the Aqua II water stove system. The judgment of the trial court will be affirmed.\nAffirmed.\nJudges ORR and LEWIS concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "HEDRICK, Chief Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Shore, Hudspeth and Harding, by N. Lawrence Hudspeth, for plaintiffs, appellees.",
      "David F. Tamer for defendant Baity, appellant.",
      "No brief for defendant, Puckett Enterprises, Inc., appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "JEFFREY STEVEN RUSSELL and wife, STEPHNEY WRIGHT RUSSELL, Plaintiffs-Appellees v. DAROLD T. BAITY d/b/a BAITY\u2019S HEATING AND AIR CONDITIONING COMPANY; and PUCKETT ENTERPRISES, INC., Defendants-Appellants\nNo. 8823SC1386\n(Filed 5 September 1989)\n1. Sales \u00a7 17\u2014 heating system \u2014breach of warranty \u2014evidence sufficient\nIn an action arising from the purchase of a heating system for plaintiffs\u2019 home, the evidence was clearly sufficient to support the jury\u2019s verdict and the judgment entered thereon that defendant Baity impliedly and expressly warranted to plaintiffs that the heating system would meet state and local codes and be fit for the ordinary purposes for which such systems were used. N.C.G.S. \u00a7 1A-1, Rule 50(b).\n2. Trial \u00a7\u00a7 6, 58.3\u2014 breach of warranty \u2014 stipulation that court determine liability between codefendants \u2014 trial judge\u2019s decision final\nThe trial judge\u2019s decision limiting the liability of the codefendant manufacturer was final in a breach of warranty action arising from the sale of a heating system where the parties\u2019 stipulation authorized the trial judge to determine the amount of each defendant\u2019s liability to the plaintiffs after the issues had been answered by the jury.\n3. Unfair Competition \u00a7 1\u2014 defective heating system \u2014 evidence not sufficient\nThe evidence was not sufficient to support plaintiff\u2019s claim for unfair and deceptive trade practices with respect to the sale and installation of a water stove system.\nAPPEAL by plaintiffs and defendants from Mills, Judge. Judgment entered 13 July 1988 in Superior Court, YADKIN County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 23 August 1989.\nThis is a civil action wherein plaintiffs seek damages for the alleged breach of an express warranty pursuant to G.S. 25-2-313, for the alleged breach of the implied warranty of merchantability pursuant to G.S. 25-2-314, and for alleged unfair and deceptive trade practices pursuant to G.S. 75-1.1, arising out of a contract between plaintiffs and defendants, in which plaintiffs agreed to purchase and defendants agreed to install a heating system into plaintiffs\u2019 home. At the conclusion of the evidence, the trial judge granted defendants\u2019 motion for directed verdict on plaintiffs\u2019 claim for damages under G.S. 75-1.1. The following issues were submitted to and answered by the jury.\n1. Did defendant, Baity, breach the written contract between plaintiffs and defendant, Baity?\nANSWER: Yes\n2. Did defendant, Puckett Enterprises, Inc., make an express warranty to plaintiffs that the Aqua II water stove system purchased by plaintiffs would meet all state and local building codes?\nANSWER: Yes\n3. If so, did defendant, Puckett Enterprises, Inc., breach said express warranty?\n, ANSWER: Yes\n4. Did defendant, Baity, impliedly warrant to plaintiffs that the Aqua II water stove system purchased by plaintiffs would be fit for the ordinary purposes for which such systems are used?\nANSWER: Yes\n5. If so, did defendant, Baity, breach said implied warranty?\nANSWER: Yes\n6. Did defendant, Puckett Enterprises, Inc. impliedly warrant to plaintiffs that the Aqua II water stove system purchased by plaintiffs would be fit for the ordinary purposes for which such systems are used?\nANSWER: Yes\n7. If so, did defendant, Puckett Enterprises, Inc. breach said implied warranty?\nANSWER: Yes\n8. What amount of damages, if any, are plaintiffs entitled to recover?\nANSWER: $7,000\nThe trial court entered judgment on the verdict and concluded that \u201cdefendant, Puckett\u2019s liability, as between defendant, Baity, and defendant, Puckett, should be restricted to the sum of $2,084.78.\u201d Plaintiffs and defendants appealed.\nShore, Hudspeth and Harding, by N. Lawrence Hudspeth, for plaintiffs, appellees.\nDavid F. Tamer for defendant Baity, appellant.\nNo brief for defendant, Puckett Enterprises, Inc., appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0422-01",
  "first_page_order": 450,
  "last_page_order": 454
}
