This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

Ps went to the sales lot of D. After informing one of D's salesmen that they sought to purchase a three-bedroom home, 14 feet in width and 70 feet in length, and priced from $9,000 to $9,500, Ps were shown several mobile homes, some of which, unknown to Ps, were models smaller than the requested size. The following day, accompanied by their son, Ps returned to the lot and made a final selection. The salesman assured Ps' son that the selected model was 14 by 70 feet in size. The written contract specified the selected model's width as 14 feet, but the length of the home was omitted. D's salesman knew that the home was not the right size. The manufacturer's statement of origin and an application for title subsequently sent to them by D also listed the home as 14 by 70 feet. Within a month of delivery, the mobile home drifted off its footings. Ps arranged for reskirting of the sides by a third party. They discovered that the length of the home was 64 feet, and thus lacked six feet in length and 84 square feet of living space. P eventually sued D. The trial court dismissed Ps' claim for damages. It also denied Ps' claim for cancellation of the contract and return of the purchase price. It held Ps occupancy of the mobile home from the end of April 1974, to date, clearly shows that the value of the mobile home was not substantially impaired. P appealed.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.