dolution

Robinson v. Durham

FACTS Mike Durham bought a used 1968 Chevrolet Camaro from Ronald and Wyman Robinson, owners of Friendly Discount Auto Sales. Unknown to either Durham or the Robinsons, the car had been stolen. In fact, when he first bought the car, Wyman Robinson had obtained tag receipts from what turned out to be the car thief and had subsequently registered the car in his name. Durham had received all prior documentation upon purchase of the car. However, the Federal Bureau of Investigation seized the car from Durham and returned it to the original owner. Durham sued the Robinsons, alleging, among other things, breach of the warranty of title. The jury awarded Durham $5,200, the amount he had paid for the car. The Robinsons appealed.

DECISION Judgment for Durham.

OPINION The Robinsons assert that since they were good faith purchasers for value when they bought the car for their business, they had good title and therefore passed good title to Durham. Alternatively, the Robinsons maintain that they had at least a voidable title and thus could pass good title to Durham, who was himself a good faith purchaser for value. Both arguments are without merit. It is clear that a thief gets only void title, and without more, cannot pass any title to a subsequent purchaser, not even to a good faith purchaser for value. Since the Robinsons obtained no title from the thief, they could not pass good title to Durham. This clearly constitutes a breach of warranty of title between the Robinsons and Durham.

INTERPRETATION A void title is no title.

ETHICAL QUESTION Did either of the parties act unethically? Explain.

CRITICAL THINKING QUESTION Who should bear the loss between the Robinsons and Durham? Explain.