Citation[]
Bernard v. Compugraphic Corp., 35 Wash. App. 414, 667 P.2d 117 (1983) (full-text).
Trial Court Proceedings[]
The buyers, who owned a commercial printing business, filed suit for damages incurred due to the malfunctioning of a typeset machine and two replacement machines purchased from seller, Compugraphic Corporation. The trial court held that Compugraphic had breached implied and express warranties and negligently misrepresented the capability, suitability, reliability, servicability, and profitability of the machine. The trial court awarded the buyers damages of $117,797.55 including costs and interest for the value of data stored in the machine, lost profits, employee wages and the purchase price of the machine and certain accessories.
Appellate Court Proceedings[]
The seller appealed alleging that the trial court’s award was not within the evidence. The appellate court rejected this claim, holding that there was sufficient evidence to support the damages awarded to the buyers. The seller also alleged that the buyers should not be permitted to retain the machine and at the same time recover its purchase price, resulting in a "double recovery" for the buyers. The appellate court found merit in this claim and remanded for the trial court to decide the disposition of the machine.
The buyers also appealed the trial court’s decision, alleging that the court erred in refusing to award them the purchase price of certain accessories and for the interest paid for the financing of the machine. The appellate court found no error, although it remanded the case for a determination of whether the award should have included the purchase price paid by the buyers for various other accessories.