Becker v. IRM Corp., 698 P.2d 116 (1985)

Citation: Becker v. IRM Corp., 698 P.2d 116 (1985)
Parent Document: Becker v. IRM Corp., 698 P.2d 116 (1985)
Jurisdiction: California (state)
Effective Date: 1985-04-29
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1172788/becker-v-irm-corp/ ↗

Full Text

1,141 chars

In several cases, it has been held that a seller of used machinery who does not rebuild or rehabilitate the machinery is not strictly liable in tort. (Wilkinson v. Hicks (1981) 126 Cal. App.3d 515, 520 et seq. [179 Cal. Rptr. 5]; LaRosa v. Superior Court (1981) 122 Cal. App.3d 741, 748 et seq. [176 Cal. Rptr. 224]; Tauber-Arons Auctioneers Co., Inc. v. Superior Court (1980) 101 Cal. App.3d 268, 273 et seq. [161 Cal. Rptr. 789].) Each of these cases relied at least in part on the theory that the used machinery dealer simply by offering machinery for sale does not make any representation as to quality or durability and thus does not generate the expectation of safety involved in the sale of new goods. (Wilkinson, supra, 126 Cal. App.3d at pp. 520-521; LaRosa, supra, 122 Cal. App.3d at pp. 760-761; Tauber-Arons, supra, 101 Cal. App.3d at p. 278 et seq.) When the seller of the used goods makes extensive modifications or reconditions, he is treated as a manufacturer  there is an expectation that the safety of the product has been *466 addressed. (Green v. City of Los Angeles (1974) 40 Cal. App.3d 819, 838 [115 Cal. Rptr. 685].)

Other Sections in This Document (238)

Full Text