Question: CURRAN v. CIARAMELLI, REPORTED IN NEW YORK LAW JOURNAL, NOV 10, 1998, P. 25.
FACTS In March 1998, Plaintiff purchased a Corvette from Defendant for the sum of $8,500 in cash. In April, 1998, after consulting with the local police department, he discovered that the car's vehicle identification number had been altered and that the vehicle had been reported stolen in March, 1992. The car was seized by the police and Plaintiff brought suit against Defendant for breach of the warranty of title. Defendant testified that she did not know of the alleged theft at the time she sold the car to Plaintiff. She had purchased the car from Vincent Garofala in July, 1997, who in turn had purchased the car from Bright Bay Lincoln Mercury in June, 1994. Garofala had a copy of a Retail Certificate of Sale and a copy of a New York title issued to Gail M. DiFede by the New York Department of Motor Vehicles, which was apparently Bright Bay's source of title to the car.
Defendant argued she was not liable for breach of warranty of title because she had received good title from Garofala, who had received good title from Bright Bay, who had received good title from DiFede. DECISION The court rejected Defendant's argument, stating: [A] thief cannot pass title to stolen goods and mere delivery of the goods does not relieve the seller of the obligation of warranty of title. By transferring a stolen vehicle to the Plaintiff, irrespective of whether or not she had knowledge of the theft, the Defendant breached the warranty of title codified in section 2-312(1)(a) of the Uniform Commercial Code. One who sells a stolen automobile is liable to the buyer thereof for breach of warranty of title. The court thus awarded the Plaintiff the purchase price of $8,500 plus $709.68 he had spent on repairs on the car.