Disucssion:
ALFONSO CANDELA, APPELLANT, v. PORT MOTORS, INC., RESPONDENT, ET AL., DEFENDANT SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, SECOND DEPARTMENT
FACTS: Candela purchased a car for approximately $19,000 from Port Motors, Inc. The police later seized the car, claiming that it may have been stolen. Candela brought suit against Port Motors for breach of warranty of title. Port's defense was that it indeed passed a good title to Candela. New York's Supreme Court, which is New York's
ISSUE: Can a good-faith seller of stolen goods pass a voidable or even good title to a good-faith innocent buyer? REASONING: In a word, no. Good faith and innocence have no bearing whatsoever on this matter. Someone who sells stolen goods, regardless of the degree of good faith, can never pass a voidable or good title to the buyer. The buyer has a void title, and therefore the rightful owner can reclaim the goods. DECISION AND REMEDY: The court of appeals held that the only remedy is that, if the buyer did not receive a good title to the goods from the seller, the buyer could sue the seller for the money paid. SIGNIFICANCE OF THE CASE: The signifi cance of the decision is that if Port Motors purchased the vehicle from a thief, or from the successor to a thief, Port's title would be void and Port could not have conveyed good title to Candela.
CRITICAL THINKING
The appellate court reversed the trial court's decision, which had granted a summary judgment to Port. Candela will have the opportunity to have a court rule on whether Port Motors passed good title to him. What key facts will determine whether the title was void or voidable?
ETHICAL DECISION MAKING
Why would Port Motors, Inc., fight Candela in court? Shouldn't the car dealer want to make its customers happy? What ethical norm must be underlying Port Motors' behavior in contesting Candela's claim?