Tri-City Credit Bureau v. Brimmer

DUNIWAY, J. Appeal by J. C. Lynch, doing business as Tri-City Credit Bureau (“Tri-City”), plaintiff below, and by Gateway Chevrolet Company, a corporation (“Gateway”), cross-defendant below, from a judgment in favor of respondent Bose T. Brimmer (“Brimmer”). The action was brought in the municipal court by Tri-City, as assignee of Gateway, against Brimmer. The complaint pleads, according to its legal effect, and not in haec verba, a written agreement dated June 12, 1957. This agreement is alleged to be a conditional sale agreement between Gateway as seller and Brimmer as purchaser of a Chevrolet car. The balance due is alleged to be $2,612.64, plus repossession costs of $381.52. It is stated that the car was sold for $2,075, leaving a net balance of $919.16. At the trial it appeared that the balance is $898.41.

Brimmer answered, denying that she made the pleaded contract of June 12, 1957, but alleging that on June 11, 1957, she entered into a conditional sale contract with Gateway, and denying any indebtedness. By way of cross-complaint against Gateway, she alleged that the June 11, 1957, agreement was a conditional sale contract, but that it did not state the amount of the time price differential, the contract balance owed by her, the date for payment of the installments, nor the address to which any notice should be sent to her. She also alleged that no notice of intent to sell the car was sent to her. She demanded damages for conversion of the ear, in an amount exceeding the jurisdiction of the municipal court.

The action was then transferred to the superior court (Code Civ. Proc., § 396). Gateway answered the cross-complaint, again alleging, according to its legal effect, a conditional sale contract dated June 12, 1957, stating certain of its terms, and denying all other allegations of the cross-complaint.

The court found that Brimmer and Gateway, on June 11, 1957, entered into a conditional sale contract. It found that the contract did not state the time price differential, the contract balance, the date for payment of the installments, or the address to which notice should be sent to Brimmer. It also found that Brimmer had paid $1,227.57 on account of the price, and concluded that the contract did not comply with Civil Code, section 2982, and gave judgment that Tri-City take nothing against Brimmer, and for Brimmer against Gateway for $1,227.57 plus costs.

It developed at the trial that Brimmer signed two agreements. One, dated June 11, 1957, is entitled “Sales Order, Confirmation and Sales Agreement” and was completed and [323]