Preview:

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY
D & G, INC., d/b/a FRED DRAKE                                                        )
AUTOMOTIVE, a Delaware                                                               )
Corporation,                                                                         )
)
Defendant-Below,                                                                     )
)
v.                                                                                   )   C.A.   00A-10-007-FSS
)
DON HORTON,                                                                          )
)
Plaintiff-Below.                                                                     )
Submitted: April 23, 2001
Decided: July 17, 2001
Upon Appeal From the Court of Common Pleas -- AFFIRMED
ORDER
Horton sued Defendant D&G, Inc. in the Court of Common Pleas
seeking “to recover the balance due on a verbal ‘handshake’” sales contract.  The
Court of Common Pleas concluded that a valid agreement existed and ordered
D&G to pay the balance.  D&G appeals that ruling.
D & G is an automobile recycler.  According to the record, under an
oral contract, later reduced to writing, D&G bought 137 unclaimed cars from
Horton for $125.00 each.  All the cars, except one, lacked valid titles or salvage




certificates.   As the parties intended, D&G hauled away the cars and scrapped
them.   D&G made six payments under its contract with Horton.    Then, D&G
refused to pay more, claiming that Horton failed to provide D&G with titles or
salvage certificates for 136 cars.1  Both parties dispute who bears responsibility
for furnishing titles or salvage certificates.   Meanwhile, everyone agrees that
Horton supplied the cars, D & G chose to dispose of them and D & G refused to
pay as agreed.
As far as the title issue, the Court understands that both parties have
been indifferent to Delaware’s motor vehicle laws.   Neither party gets to throw
the law in the other’s face.   On the one hand, the courts will not ignore the
statute.  It promotes an important public purpose.  Thanks to the way the parties
behaved, the State has no assurance that the cars were not stolen.  On the other
hand, the statute does not give an auto recycler the opportunity to accept
undocumented vehicles, recycle them and keep the money.    There is no public
policy reason to justify refusing to enforce the established agreement under the
facts here.
In its holding, the Court of Common Pleas stated:
1 See 21 Del. C. § 2505 and 2512.
2




. there was, in fact, a valid agreement here.   It was
first  verbal,  and  then  it  at  least  was  reduced  in
rudimentary  form  into  writing  .  .  .  and  once  the
agreement was entered into, it was acted upon.   There
were  actions  taken  on  the  agreement,  there  were
payments made repeatedly.  The issue of titles, does not
appear to have been a factor in the original agreement,
nor  does  it  appear  to  be  a  factor  in  the  written
memorialization of that agreement. [T]he actions taken
by the [D]efendant after the agreement was signed do,
in fact, show that there was an agreement that was
recognized.  And it does not appear to me that this issue
of titles was that important, or even a factor  .  .  . I,
therefore, conclude that it was not a factor as far as the
agreement was concerned.
The Court of Common Pleas is correct.
The court can identify no error of law or unsupported fact finding in the
trial court proceedings.   Accordingly, the Court of Common Pleas’ decision is
AFFIRMED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Judge
oc:  Prothonotary (Civil Division)
pc:  Ferry & Joseph, P.A.
Clark C. Kingery, Esquire
3

Download 17040.pdf

Delaware Law