Cuchine v. H.O. Bell, Inc.
Montana Supreme Court
682 P.2d 723 (1984)
- Written by Jayme Weber, JD
Facts
Timothy Cuchine (plaintiff) bought a truck from H.O. Bell, Inc. (Bell) (defendant) under an installment contract. Bell assigned its interest in the contract to the Ford Motor Credit Company (Credit) (defendant). When Cuchine began to have problems with the truck, Cuchine took the truck to Bell for repairs. When Bell could not repair the truck, Cuchine left the truck with Bell, stopped paying under the installment contract, and sued both Bell and Credit for breach of both the implied warranty of merchantability and the implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose. Cuchine asked the trial court to rescind or revoke the contract. Credit acknowledged that it was the assignee of the contract, but it filed a counterclaim against Cuchine to recover the missed payments under the contract. Credit also reassigned its interest in the contract back to Bell. Then Credit asked the trial court to dismiss Cuchine’s claims against Credit. The trial court dismissed the case against Credit. Cuchine appealed, arguing that the contract stated that an assignee of Bell would be subject to the same claims and defenses that Cuchine could assert against Bell.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Sheehy, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 805,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.