holding that this Court has "jurisdiction to hear an appeal from a circuit court judgment reversing the judgment of the magistrate court in a matter heard there on the merits, notwithstanding the fact that the circuit court order also undertakes to remand the case to the magistrate court for a new trial or other proceedings"
How later courts described this case
- holding that this Court has "jurisdiction to hear an appeal from a circuit court judgment reversing the judgment of the magistrate court in a matter heard there on the merits, notwithstanding the fact that the circuit court order also undertakes to remand the case to the magistrate court for a new trial or other proceedings"
- “A party to a controversy in any circuit court may obtain from this Court an appeal in any civil case when there is an order granting a new trial and such appeal may be taken from the order without waiting for the new trial to be held.” (quoting Syl. pt. 1, Hundley v. Martinez, 151 W. Va. 977 , 158 S.E.2d 159 (1967))
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
McGRAW, Chief Justice,
concurring.
(Filed Jan. 14, 2002)
I agree with the majority that the provisions of W. Va.Code § 46A-6-107 (1963) prevent the seller of a used car from limiting implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose. I also concur that, by declaration of the Legislature, the Consumer Credit and Protection Act applies to sales of used ears.
*579 I write separately because I am concerned that this opinion might suggest that there are no circumstances in which a party may sell a mechanically defective car to a knowing buyer. There are many individuals who, for one reason or another, fully intend to buy a cai' that doesn’t work well, or has some obvious mechanical problem. Some people are mechanically inclined; some might wish to buy a car for its parts, or, in the case of certain cars, for their future value as collectibles. If the facts are made clear to the buyer, that is, if it is clear that the vehicle has adequate “fitness” for the “particular purpose” intended by the buyer, then it is acceptable to sell a vehicle that is not in perfect working condition.
For a variety of historical reasons, the so called “used-car-dealer” enjoys a position right next to lawyers and politicians in the societal pantheon of the untrustworthy, which no doubt presented a disadvantage to appellee’s counsel from the outset. But just as is the case with lawyers and politicians, most car dealers are honest people trying to make a living, and are deserving of representation. The specific facts of this case suggest that the dealership did make a reasonable effort to fulfill its obligations to the buyer. However, as the majority points out, this question of fact was answered by a jury, as is proper, and that jury found against the dealer. I agree it is not ours to upset that judgment in this case.
Having expressed my limited reservations, I respectfully concur with the majority.