Suminski v. Maine Appliance Warehouse, Inc.

602 A.2d 1173 (1992)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

P purchased a brand new television set from D in May 1988. In June 1989, the set began to turn off by itself, although the picture would come on. P called D and was told that his set was out of warranty, but was given the name of a repairman. P called the repairman, who requested that he look for someone else. to repair the set. Two months later, the set did not turn on at all. P called D, and a salesperson repeated that the set was out of warranty and that P. P requested that the manager call him the next morning. P called again and talked to Ray Picard. Picard stated that its only obligation was to provide the name of a repairman and that the store would charge P for any work that it might do on the set. Attorney Wade called Picard, who repeated that the express warranty was the store's only obligation. P sued for a breach of the implied warranty of merchantability and violation of the UTPA (Maine Unfair Trade Practices Act). The District Court found that D had breached the implied warranty of merchantability and violated the UTPA. It awarded costs to repair and attorney fees. The Superior Court affirmed the judgment but refused the attorney fees. D appealed.