Godwin Aircraft v. Houston

851 S.W.2d 816 (1992)

From our private database of 46,200+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Godwin Aircraft v. Houston

Tennessee Court of Appeals
851 S.W.2d 816 (1992)

Facts

Ray Houston (defendant) was an aircraft inspector certified by the Federal Aviation Administration. Houston performed the annual inspection on an airplane he owned, certifying in one of the airplane’s logbooks that the airplane was airworthy. Approximately 127 flight hours after the annual-inspection entry, Houston sold the airplane at an auction. The auction catalog provided a disclaimer that all aircraft bought at the auction would be bought as is, where is. Buyers had an opportunity to inspect Houston’s airplane for three days prior to the auction. During the auction, buyers were also given an opportunity to inspect the airplane and its logbooks shortly before the bidding opened. Godwin Aircraft, Inc. (Godwin) (plaintiff) inspected the airplane’s logbooks during this brief window. Relying on the statement that the airplane had been declared airworthy 127 flight hours earlier, Godwin bid on and won the airplane. After Godwin received possession of the airplane, it learned that the airplane had numerous, significant issues that made the airplane dangerous and not airworthy. Several of the issues clearly existed prior to the annual inspection listed in the logbook, and others could have existed at that time. Godwin sued Houston for fraud, misrepresentation, and breach of contract. Houston responded that he had perhaps made a mistake in the logbook or that the defects had appeared after the inspection. Houston also claimed that the as-is disclaimer meant that he could not be held liable for any defects, especially because Godwin had three days to inspect the airplane before the auction. Among other findings, the trial court determined that (1) Houston had misrepresented the information in the logbook and (2) the as-is disclaimer was not a defense to Godwin’s claims. The trial court entered judgment requiring Houston to pay Godwin approximately $51,500 in compensatory and punitive damages. Houston appealed.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Crawford, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 783,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 783,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,200 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.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 783,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,200 briefs - keyed to 988 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership